wénjílièbiǎo
The Iliad
伊利亚特
     zài fāng wén xué shǐ shàng shǐ shī ào sàishì xiàn cún zuì zǎo de jīng pǐn bān rèn wéizhè liǎng shǐ shī de zuò zhě shì fāng wén shǐ shàng wèi yòu zuò pǐn chuán shì de tiān cáiyǐn quán qiú de shī rén shǐ shī de shǐ bèi jǐng shì kuàng shí shí niánguī hóng wěigěi jiāo zhàn shuāng fāng zào chéng zhòng chuāngshāng de luò zhàn zhēngxiàng duō zhòng shì jiàn yàngzhè chǎng zhàn zhēngyòng de xuè huǒgěi wén xué shù gōng liǎo zhī jìn de cáiyīng xióng men de chù liǎo shī rén de líng gǎngěi men 'ān shàng liǎo xiǎng xiàng de chì bǎngshǐ men zài shǐ xiàn shí zhī jiān zhǎo dào piàn wén xué de zài shǐ shí chuán wén zhī shàng jià guāng shí de qiáo liángyòng cái huá de tóugēng yún zài dāo qiāng pèng xiǎng de tián zhǐ diǎn zhàn zhēng de fēng yúncuī shī de fāng cǎo de xiāng huā
  
                luò zhàn zhēng shǐ shī liè
  
     jiǔ shì de suì yuè gěi luò zhàn zhēng méng shàng liǎo céng shén de cǎidàn shìbāo kuò luó duō xiū zài nèi de shǐ xué jiā men bān dōubù fǒu rèn zhè chǎng zhàn zhēng de zhēn shí xìngsuī rán duì jìn xíng de nián dài lái biàn méi yòu zhǒng tǒng de dìng shuōàn luó duō tuī luò zhàn zhēng jìn xíng de nián dài yuē zài gōng yuán qián 1250 nián zuǒ yòu, [ ] ér gēn MorPchum de jìzǎi rén gōng xiàn luò de shí jiān yìng zài qián 1290 héng 8 nián jiānjìn dài mǒu xiē xué zhě jiāng chéng shí jiān fàng zài qián 1370 nián zuǒ yòu xué zhě 'è tuō sài nài ( Eratosthenes, shēng qián 275 niánde kǎo zhèng dào xué rén de zàn tóng héng héng de dìng shì qián 1193 héng 84 nián shuō lái fāng xué shù jiè bān qīng xiàng jiāng luò zhàn zhēng de jìn xíng nián dài dìng zài gōng yuán qián shí sān dào shí 'èr shì kǎi nàihuò mài wáng cháoqián 1600 héng 1100 niánde hòu
    ●《 shǐhuò zhàn zhēng shǐ》 2·145·4。
     gēn shì chuán shuō luò 'ángshì zuò yòu de chéng bǎozuò luò zài xiǎo de běi bīn lín páng de shuǐ liúguó wáng 'ā zhī shān luó céng chū yóu yuǎn yáng bèi shòu wáng zhě nài láo de kuǎn dài hòu jiāng nài láo zhī hǎi lún dài chū fǎn huí luò bāo kuò de zhí mín de wáng zhě shǒu lǐng men shì fēng yún jìn bīng luò duó huí hǎi lúnjiàn duì huì 'ào yóu kǎi nài guó wáng 'ā mén nóng tǒng lǐngjīng guò fān zhōu zhé lián jūn dēng 'àn luò bīng lín chéng xiàdàn lián jiǔ nián huòzài shí nián ā mén nóng lián jūn zhōng zuì hǎo de zhàn jiāng 'ā liú shēng zhēng zhíhòu zhě yóu bīng zhànshǐ luò rényóu tuō 'ěr tǒng lǐngjié jié huò shèngbīng rén de hǎi chuán yíng péng tuō 'ěr zhèn shā luó luò hòuā liú chóngfǎn zhàn chǎng huí luò jūn zhàn shā tuō 'ěr hòuā liú zhàn jiāng chǎngàn zhào shén ā kāi rén rénzuì zhōng gōng xià luò dàng jié liǎo zhè zuò chéng bǎoshǒu lǐng men jīng nánhuí fǎn jiā yuánmiàn duì xīn de tiǎo zhànxīn de shēng huó
     guǒ shuō luò zhàn zhēng shì jiàn què yòu shì de shǐ shíshì dài xiāng chuán de kǒu shù miǎn dechuàng xīn shǐ chéng wéi nèi róng fēng cǎi bīn fēnchōng mǎn shén huà chuán de shì huò shì liè hòushī rén men yòu luò zhàn zhēng wéi bèi jǐngchuàng zuò liǎo liè shǐ shīgòu chéng liǎo yòu tǒng de shǐ shī qún yòu guān luò zhàn zhēnghuò wéi bèi jǐngde shǐ shī liè。 [● ]“ lièzhōng,《 》( Kypria, shí juànmiáo xiě zhàn zhēng de yīn shēng zài zhī qián de shì jiàn;《 āi 'é 》( Aethiopis, juànxiǎo 》( IliasMikra, juàn luò shī xiàn》( Niupersis, liǎng juàn hòu de shì jiàn;《 huí guī》( Nosti, juàn jiǎng fǎn háng qián 'ā mén nóng nài láo guān huí fǎn xiàn de zhēng zhí xiǎo 'āi 'ā zhī 'ā mén nóng huí jiā hòu bèi tài nài 'āi suǒ móu hài děng nèi rónghěn míng xiǎnzhè sān shǐ shī tián liǎo ào sàizhī jiān dekòngquē”。 jǐn jiē zhe 'é xiū huí guī de shìào sài》), ruì nài shī rén 'ōu méng( Eugamon) chuàng zuò liǎo 》( Telegonia, liǎng juàn), jiǎng shù 'é xiū 'ěr kǎi zhī nuò wài chū xún bìng zuì zhōng shā hòu yòu hūn péi nài luó pèi děng shì jiàn。《 xiǎo děng shǐ shī nèi róng jié gòu sōng sànquē shǎo yào de gài kuò liàn shù chéng jiù yuǎn de ào sài》。 duō rèn wéishǐ shī shī rén zhōngwéi yòu bǎi tuō liǎo shǐ de xiànzhuóyì fǎng wán zhěng de xíng dòng miǎn liǎoliú shuǐ zhàngshì de píng zhí bìn liǎosǎnshā pánshì de zhěng 。 [● ] cóng shí jiān shàng lái kàn,《 děng míng xiǎn de wǎn chuàng zuò de nián dài men suǒ miáo shù de xiē qíng jié néng cái shì hòu kāi shǐ liú xíng de chuán shuō
    ● chú liǎo de ào sàiwài shǐ shī jūn shī chuán wàizhè xiē zuò pǐn huò shǐ shī zhǐ shì shǐ shī liè( epikoskuklos) zhōng de fēnwèile biàn fēn duì chuán tǒng shàngrén men bān shǐ shī liè epiccycle de fàn wéi
    ●《 shī xué》 8·1451a16 héng 30, 26·1462B8 héng 11。
  
                   
  
     shǐ shàng shì fǒu què céng yòu guò rén rén de huí shì kěn dìng deshēng huó zài gōng yuán qián shì shàng bàn de 'è fěi suǒ shī rén nuò ( Callinos) céng shǐ shīsài bài 》, rèn wéi shì de zuò pǐnshēng huó zài qián liù shì de nài ( Xenophanes) kāi 'é shī rén ( Simonides, yuē qián 556 héng 468 nián céng de míng
     rén xiāng xìn ( Homeros) chū shēng zài xiǎo néng zài 'é ( Ionia), néng zài 'āi 'é ( Aeolis)。 shí hòuzhì shǎo yòu fāng huò chéng shì jìng xiāng zhēng duó desuǒ yòu quán”, bāo kuò xiǎo hǎi xiāng wàng de diǎn 'ā 'ěr zài zhòng duō de jìng zhēng zhě zhōngrén men jiào wéi qīng xiàng jiē shòu de yòu liǎng 'é de 'é ( Chios) 'āi 'é de 'ěr ( Smuma)。 kāi 'é shī rén chēng wéi Chiosaner( 'é rén) [● ], pǐn rèn wéi 'é 'ěr tóng wéi de xiāng。 [● ] zhé xué jiā 'ā nài ( Anaximenes) rèn dìng de jiā xiāng zài 'é shǐ xué jiā 'ā láo ( Acusilaos) ( Hellanikos) biǎo shì guò tóng yàng de xiàng wàizài shí guī míng xià deā luó sòngzuò zhě chēng shì máng rén”, lái shān shí lín xún de 'é 。” [● ]
    ● piàn duàn 85, Bergk; lìng jiàn piàn duàn 8, West
    ● shí hòurén men chuán tǒng shàngjiàng 'ěr dìng wéi de chū shēng ér jiāng 'é kàn zuò shì chuàng biān de fāng de xiāng”。
    ●《 shī sòng》,“ ā luó sòng” 172。
     shǐ xué jiā 'ōu 'áng( Eugaion) xiāng xìn wéi 'ěr rén wèn zhuān jiā suǒ rén xīn luó tuō ( Stesimbrotos, shēng huó zài qián shì jǐn rèn dìng shì 'ěr rénér qiě hái shuō yòu shī rén de kānshòu dào rén men xiàng jìng shén bān de chóng yǎngzài zǎo shī chuán delùn shī rén duō chēng xiǎo dǎo 'é ( Ios), zhè néng dāng shí liú xíng de chuán wén
     àn luó duō tuī suàn měi bǎi nián sān dài rén ), de shēng huó nián dài,“ jīn zhì duō chāo guò bǎi nián”, huàn yán zhī yuē zài gōng yuán qián 850 nián zuǒ yòu。 [● ] luó duō jiāng hēi 'é guī wéi tóng shí dài de shī rén, [● ] ér nuò nài wéi de huó dòng nián dài zǎo hēi 'é 。 [● ] xiū duì yòu guò jiànjiē de shùrèn wéi shēng huó zài luò zhàn zhēng zhī hòu jiān huì yòu tài jiǔ yuǎn de nián 。 [● ] zhì chí zài gōng yuán qián zhì liù shì yòu rén yǐn yòng de shī zhì qián shì shì jiā xiǎo de míng yóu jiànjiāng de shēng huó nián dài tuī dìng zài gōng yuán qián shì zhì shì chū), yīngdāng néng suàn shì tài guò cǎo shuài de bān rèn wéi,《 de chuàng biān shí jiān néng zài gōng yuán qián 750 zhì 675 nián jiān
    ●《 shǐ》 2·53·2。
    ●《 shǐ》 2·53·2。
    ● piàn duàn B13, Diels héng Kranz。
    ●《 luó bēn zhàn zhēng shǐ》 l·3·3。
  
                 《
  
     shì wéi de shì zuì zǎo de shǐ shī shī rén。《 běn shàng yòng lǎo de 'é fāng yántóng shí bāo róng liàng de 'āi 'é fāng yán de yòng biàn zhēngyòu de shèn zhì zhuī dào lǎo de kǎi nài shí dài wàiā 'ěr sài fāng yán zài zhōng liú xià liǎo de yìn hěn míng xiǎnguān luò zhàn zhēng de shǐ shī yuán yuǎn de nián dài,( néng tài cháng de shì xíng shì liú chuán gōng tíngjūn yíng mín jiān de gōng zài shǒu chuàng miáo shù luò zhàn zhēng de shì huò shǐ shīér zài guǎng zhēng cǎiqiǎo zhì jīng biāntái qián rén zhī cháng zhòng jiā zhī duǎn shī rén de qíng huái shù jiā de gōng chuàng zuò liǎo ào sàizhè liǎng xiǔ de shī piān
     Ilaias, 》, wéiguān 'áng de shìhuò 'áng shī ”, zuò wéi shī míngzuì zǎo jiàn zhī luó duō de zhù zuò。《 gòng 'èr shí juàn hòu rén suǒ fēn), 15,693( ±) xíng juàn de cháng cóng 429 dào 999 xíng děng shǐ shī cǎi yòng liù yīn cháng duǎn duǎn yáng ), qián cháng hòu duǎn de xià chōng zhī shìdàn shì shǐ shī yòu shì cháng duǎn duǎn de tǒng tiān xià”。 shí shàngchú yīn wài yīn jiē shòu cháng cháng yáng yáng ); wài liù yīn gèng shì cháng duǎn duǎn dejìn ”, bān yòng cháng duǎn yáng 'ér dài zhīzhè yàng men yòng xià liè hào huò hào biǎo shì shǐ shīhuò liù yīn cháng duǎn duǎn shì shīyīng xióng shǐ shīde huò jié zòu xíng shì
     héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng U
     shì wèi yín sòng shī rén( aoides), shēng huó zài hái méi yòu shū miàn wén huò shū miàn wén jīng shī chuánshàng wèi xīng huò chóngxīn shū zhì shǎo shàng guǎng fàn liú xíngde shí dàisuǒ ,《 shǒu xiān shì kǒu tóu wén xué zuò pǐnkǒu sòng shǐ shī de gòng tóng xiǎn zhù de diǎn shì cǎi yòng zhěng tào dìng huò xiāng duì dìng de shì duǎn duàn luòxiǎn ránzhè chuàng zuò fāng shì yòu zhù shī rén de gòu zhì nán hěn de lín chǎng yín sòng miǎn de xīng huīzài ā mén nóng shìjūn duì de tǒng shuài”( huòbīng zhòng de shǒu lǐng”), nài láo shìxiào hǒu zhàn chǎng dezhàn jiāng men dàochén léi yuǎn dezhòu 。“ bái bǎng de 、“ zhì duō móu deé xiū 、“ tóu kuī shǎn liàng de tuō 'ěr、“ jié deā liú 、“ jìng jiá jiān deā kāi rén、“ jiǔ lán de hǎi féi de luò zhè xiē chéng shì huà yòng ( form lae) jǐn diǎn chū liǎo bèi xiū shì zhěmíng rén huò de mǒu huò mǒu xiē diǎnshǔ xìng pǐn lèiér qiě yòu zhù xuàn rǎn shì shǐ shī níng zhònghóng wěi de shī pǐn zhēngyīng xióng mengāo ”、“ kuí wěi”、“ yīng jùn”, zài mǎn liǎo chī de wàng hòu xióng biàn tāo tāosòng cháng liǎo chì bǎng de huà ”, huò tǎng xià xiǎng shòu shuì mián de xiāng tiányīng xióng men gǎn zuò gǎn wéishèng shíè hěn hěn dīng zheduì shǒuzhèn wáng hòu cuì rán dǎo ,“ hōng rán shēngkǎi jiá zài shēn shàng kēng qiāng zuò xiǎng”。 men xiān shì quán zhuāngjiē zhe chōng shàng zhàn chǎngtiào xià zhàn chē duì shǒu tōngliào dǎo shù míng zhàn jiāng rén gǎn huáng huáng bēn táorán hòu shòu cuò shāng shǒu qiú gào shén yòuchóngxīn huò yǒng liàng zhàn dǒuzhèn shā fāng de yóu shǒujiē zheliǎng jūn wéi zhe shī zhǎn kāi 'è zhànshāng wáng cǎn zhòngpíng jiè shén de zhù yòucóng qiāng lín jiàn xià jiù chū zhèn wáng de jiànglǐng bàn yǒu。《 zhōng miáo shù liǎo zhè yàng dezhuàng ”( aristeiai), yòng liǎo lèi de shìsuī rán zài mǒu xiē dān xiàng shàng lüè yòu chū duàn de shù 2·11 héng 15, 23 héng 33, 60 héng 70, 9·123 héng 57, 354 héng 99 děngyòu zhù jiǎn qīng shī rén de láo dòng qiáng jiā cháng shǐ shī de piān shēn huà tīng zhòng duì mǒu xiē nèi róng de yìn xiàng
     chéng shì huà yòng de xíng chéng zhǎn jīng liǎo màn cháng de suì yuèmǒu xiē yòng yóu shì mǒu xiē shén zhī de zhǐ chēng 'ā 'ěr fēng 'ěr )、 ā tuō nài diǎn děngzài shēng huó de nián dài néng shìhuà shíhuò dǒng”。 zuò wéi shì ,“ niú yǎn jīng de néng chǎn shēng chóng bài téng de shí dàizài shǐ shī shī de miàn chéng wéiměi de”、“ piào liàng detóng
     wèi shén huò yīng xióng wǎng wǎng yòu shàngshèn zhì shí shì huò chéng shì huà yòng shī rén gēn yīn de yào xuǎn yòng shì de shì duì zhòu wéi zài tóng de shàng xià wén shī rén yòng liǎo tóng de xiū shì chéngfènbāo kuòduō móu shàn duàn de”、“ huì yún de”、“ chén léi yuǎn deděng děngtóng yànggēn yīn de yàoshī rén yòu shí yòngcháng de”, yòu shí yòngjìng jiá jiān de”, ǒu 'ěr yòngshēn tóng jiá dexiū shì 'ā kāi rén yīn yuán zhì yuē zhe shī rén de yòng tóng shí fēng liǎo shǐ shī de yánzēng qiáng liǎo de biǎo xiàn zhòng duō de shì shǐ shī rén yòu néng jǐn gēn de yào qiúér qiě hái néng zhào dào huò de yàoxuǎn yòng shì de yòng dāng 'ā liú chóu bèi luó luò de zàng shí jiù zài shìjié deyīng xióngér shìxīn xiōng háo zhuàng dehuǒ bànyīn wéi zài zhè jìng zhōnghòu zhě qián zhě gèng zhuāng zhòng de cǎirán 'éryòu shíwèile zhào shì de guī zhěng wéi liǎo wéi shǐ shī zhōng chéng shì huà yòng de wěn dìng xìngshī rén huì yòu shí lüèshì de yuán ér men dàngzuò chún cuì de chéngfèn jiā zài míng huò bèi xiū shì chéngfèn zhī shàng men bān huì 'è fěi kàn zuò shìshén yàng de”(《 ào sài》 l·70) yīng xióng huì qīng xiàng rèn wéizūn guì de qīn gài luó niàn qīn de shēn fèn(《 ào sài 10·5)。 yòu de chéng shì huà shì míng xiǎn bèi xiū shì chéngfèn dāng shí de zhuàng tài chǔjìng ā luó zài yuān shí réng rán shìhuān xiào de”( 5·375), bái de qíng kōng shìduō xīng de”( 8·46), ér 'āng zàng de zhào jiù shìshǎn guāng de”(《 ào sài》 6·26) děng děng
     shì wèi gōng shēn hòuxiǎng xiàng fēng shàn chuàng xīn de yán shī。《 》“ zhāng huá miào dié chūjīng cǎishēng dòng de yòng shí jiē shì zhī yòng 'àn zhàn dǒu de píng zhàng”( shàn zhàn de zhuàng yǒng)。“ yáng qún de qīn”( shān ), dàn què gèng wéi shú gèng shàn shǐ yòng míng 。《 zhōng de míng fēn liǎng lèi lèi wéi jiǎn dān xínglìng lèi shì cóng jiǎn dān xíng de chǔ shàng zhǎn 'ér lái de xíngjiǎn dān xíng míng de jié gòu zhēng shì A xiàng B。 āi 'ā de zhàn dùnxiàng qiáng”, bīng yǒng men xiàng láng huò shī zhàn dǒuā luó cóng 'é lín shàng xià lái,“ xiàng hēi bān”( l·47); sài cóng hǎi chū lái,“ xiàng céng ”( l·359)。 lèi míng yòng lái xīn yìng shǒuyùtiē qiǎo wèi huǒ chún qīng de
     lìng lèi míng xíng míng zài mín zǎo de shǐ shī zhōng jué shǎo chū xiàndàn zài shǐ shī zhōng què shì yòng zhòng duō tōng de yán xiàn xiàng lèi míng de jié gòu zhēng shì zài A xiàng B zhī hòu jiā zhěng duàn wán zhěng de nèi róng xiū shì huò jiě shuō duì xiàng shì jiē shòu shì de A, ér shì zuò wéi xiàng de B。
     tóng wèi mài 'é huò yòng xiān hóng de yán liào
     xiàng zhì zuò de jiá piànjìn guǎn duō shǒu
     wéi zhī tuò xián què jìng jìng tǎng zài
     zuò wéi wáng zhě de jiā bǎoshòu dào shuāngchóng de
     zhēn 'ài shì de shì yòu néng wéi zhě zēng tiān róng guāng。( 4·141 45)
     tōng chángshī rén jiù xiàng zhè yàng …” jié shù míng shì de jìn chéng
     jiù xiàng zhè yàng nài láo xiān xuè jìn rǎn liǎo qiáng jiàn de
     tuǐ de xiǎo tuǐ xiàn tiáo fēn míng de huái 。( 4·146 héng 47)
     bān shuō láishǐ shī shǔ shì shī de fàn chóu。《 zhōng de shù fēn liǎng zhǒng zhǒng shì shī rén jiǎng zhě de shēn fèn suǒ zuò de shùlìng zhǒng shì shī rén rén de shēn fèn suǒ jìn xíng de biǎo shùbiǎo bái duì huà duō chēng zhǒng xíng shì wéimiáo shù”, chēng 'èr zhǒng xíng shì wéibiǎo yǎn”。 [● ]《 zhōngzhí jiē yǐn yuē zhàn bàn zuǒ yòuér zhí jiē yǐn wéi rén de shùbāo kuò shù), jìn zhōng rén( dramafispersonae) de huà báiháo wèn lèi yán xíng shì wéi biǎo yǎn shì shù gōng liǎo xiàn chéng de cái liàocóng zhè shàng lái shuō,《 shì jiè chún cuì de shì shī shī rén wán quán huò běn shàng jiǎng shù zhě de shēn fèn shù shīzhī jiān de zhǒng shī xíng shìbólātú rèn wéi shǐ shī shǔ bēi de fàn chóu, [● ] ér shì bēi shī rén”。 [● ]
    ●《 shī xué》 3·1448a21 héng 24。
    ●《 gòng guó》 10·595C。
    ●《 gòng guó》 10·607A。
    《 miáo shù liǎo yīcháng hōng hōng liè liè de zhàn zhēng zhōng zuì bēi zhuàng de zhǎn shì liǎo zhàn zhēng de bào liè píng de guìshū biǎo liǎo shèng de yuèshī bài de tòng miáo shù liǎo yīng xióng de zhēng zhàn de jiān nán chǎn shì rén shén de guān shěn shì rén de shǔ xìng jià zhí píng rén zài zhàn zhēng zhōng de shītàn suǒ cuī shǐ rén men xíng dòng de nèi wài yīn zài shén rén huì shì shí xiǎng xiàng bìng cúnguò xiàn zài jiāo róng de wén xué píng miàn shàng duì yǐng xiǎng rén de shēng huójué dìng rén de xiǎngzhì dǎo rén de xíng wéi de liè zhòng wèn jìn xíng liǎo yán derèn zhēn deyòu shēn de tàn tǎo
    《 suǒ chù de zuì gēn běn de wèn shì rén shēng de yòu xiàn zài zhè yòu xiàn de rén shēng zhōng rén duì shēng mìng cún zài jià zhí de suǒ píng shí de shēng huó shì měi hǎo deniú yáng zài shān shàng màn niàn men zài quán biān huàn nián qīng rén chuān suō zài xiào zhī zhōng yáng yáng cǎi xié fēng chǎn de táoshī rén tánbō shù qíndòng qíng de yǐnháng gāo niàn xiǎo huǒ men chuānzhuó piào liàng de shāntiào chū huān kuài de ( 18·561 héng 72)。 rán 'ér biàn shì diǎn xíng shàng de xìng shēng huó miǎn bāo yùn zhe bēi chóu de zhǒng rén de shǔ lèi shǐ zuì zhōng bǎi tuō de xiérén shì huì de guǎn yuàn yuàn jiàn dào de jiàng línrén shēng duǎn zànduǎn ràng rén hán 'ér
     liè zhī shén huì wèiwǒ tóu nǎo
     cháng ruò kāi wèile lián de fán rén
     men xiàng shù yàng shí jiān fēng huá sēn mào
     huǒ de shēng shí yòng cuī chǎn de shuò guǒrán 'ér hǎo jǐng cháng
     men jié shuāi lǎo huǐ rén wáng。( 21·462 héng 6)
     rén shēng tóng shù de cuī wángzài liù juàn 145 héng 49 xíng biǎo shù guò zhè xiǎngzài zhàn zhēng zhōngzài huó de jiǎo shā zhōng wáng měi shí měi dōuzài shēngrén men jiān jiào zhe fēn fēn dǎo ,“ tóu liǎn cháo xià”,“ shǒu zhuā chén”。 shén chéng bǎi shàng qiān de zhuàng yǒng tuō rén yīn 'àn de zhàn zhēng zhāng kāi xuè pén kǒutūn shì nián qīng de dǒu shìcuì jiáo péng de rén shēng biàn yǒng liè 'ā liú zuì zhōng jiāng zǒu shàng zhàn jiāng chǎng de xīn suān
     dàn xiàn zàishuí béng xiǎng táo shēngcháng ruò shén 3 shì sòng dào
     de shǒu zài zhè 'áng chéng qián…… suǒ
     de péng yǒu yòu zhè bān shǒu tòng xīn
     luó luò jīng wèi yuǎn jié chū de zhàn yǒng
     hái yòu héng héng méi kàn jiàn cháng děng gāo yīng
     yòu wèi xiǎn de qīnér shēng de qīn gèng shì wèi de shén
     rán 'érjiù lián táo tuō qiáng yòu de mìng yùn de xié
     jiāng zài mǒu tiān xiǎohuáng hūn huò zhōng
     bèi mǒu rén fàng dǎozài zhàn dǒu zhōng
     yòng tóu qiānghuò shì xián de jiàn 。( 21·103 héng 13) bīng yǒng men zhī xiǎo men de shǐ mìng men de guī shì zhàn dǒu de rén shēngzhèng 'é xiū kāng kǎi chén de yàng:…… menàn zhe
     zhòu de zhì jīng cán de zhàn zhēngcóng qīng zhuàng
     dào lǎo niánzhí zhì wángshuí néng xìng miǎn。( qiě 485 héng 87) shēng mìng duǎn zànzhàn zhēng qíngdàn shìzhuàng yǒng men bìng méi yòu bēi guān shī wàngxiāo tuí fèi méi yòu yīn tān shēng wèi suō qián cuòfán rén de shēng jiù xiàng shù yàngqiū fēng lái lái luò fǎndàn shìcháng ruò
    ……
     chūn fēng zhī gān biàn huì chōu róng de xīn
     rén tóng xīn de dài jué lǎo de dài 。( 6·147 héng 49)
     rén shēng chōng mǎn shēng chōng mǎn chuàng jiàn gōng de wàng yuèshì dài de gēngtì gěi jiā dài lái de shì bēi shēng yàn shì de qíng shì yuàn tiān yóu rén de bēi tàn shì suǒ zuò wéi wénér shì qiāng chuàng de hàn xuè jiāo zhù de yīng míngshì dài xiāng chuán de měi tánzhàn yǒng men yàn fán duì zhe rén duàn xuān jiǎng de zōng cóng zhōng xiǎng shòu zuò wéi yīng xióng hòu dài de guāng róng jiāo 'àozhàn zhēng chéng rán qíng wáng què shí dàn zhàn shì de zhí shì xiào mìng jiāng chǎngzhàn shì de róng shì pīn shā lüèzhàn shì de yuè shì qiān liú fāng
     de péng yǒu 'āyào shì néng cóng zhè chǎng zhàn dǒu zhōng shēng hái
     cháng shēng lǎo kàng shuāi tiān tóng cún
     jiù zài huì zhàn zài qián pái zhàn dǒu
     huì zài yào chōng xiàng zhàn chǎngrén men zhēng róng de fāng
     dàn xiàn zài de jīng líng zhèng 'āi zhàn zài men shēn biān
     shù qiān yīn yǐngshuí táo shēng duǒ guò de héng héng
     suǒ ràng men chōng shàng qián yào me wéi zhēng róng guāngyào me
     gǒng shǒu ràng gěi rén!( 12·322 héng 28) zài xiàng duì shǒu tiǎo zhàn shí tuō 'ěr gāo shēng hǎn dàocháng ruò ràng shǒu jiāng jiāo hái cháng de 'ā kāi rénshǐ men zàng zhěduī fén zhù zài kào hǎi de fāng yán
     jiāng láiyòu rén jīng jià zhe dài zuò bǎn de hǎi chuán
     làng zài jiǔ lán de yáng miàntiào jiàn zhè duībiàn huì chū yán gǎn tàn
    “ mái zhe zhàn jiāng chǎng de rén
     wèi yǒng gǎn de zhuàng shìdǎo zài guāng róng de tuō 'ěr shǒu xià。”
     jiāng láiyòu rén huì shuō gàoér de róng jiāng shì cháng cún
    ( 7·87 héng 91)  jīn shēng cōng suǒ zài suǒ zhēngshēng mìng guìsuǒ zhēn cái tōng guò lüè jié huò dàn rén de hún jīng huá chū chǐ jiù zài yòng bào jié lüè huí néng tōng guò jiǎ guī”。 ā liú nìngkě zuò nóng rén de bāng gōng yuàn dāng míng guǐ hún de wáng zhě(《 ào sài》 12·489 héng 21)。 rán 'érduì shēng mìng de zhì 'àiméi yòu shǐ yīng xióng chéng wéi shēng mìng de héng héng chú kāi shén de yīn men shǐ zhōng shì de zhù rénmíng zhī mìng yùn xiǎn 'èdàn què xiàng míng zhī zhēng zhàn jiān nándàn shǐ dào tóu xuè liú yào pīn huóhuó yào huó yáng méi yào sǐde míng míng bái báizài hēi màn de zhàn chǎng shàng méng zhī 'āi 'ā hǎn chū liǎo bēi fèn de hūháo
     ò qīn zhòu 'ā kāi rén de 'ér men chū
     ràng yáng guāng zhào xièshǐ men chóngjiàn tiān men shā
     shā zài càn làn de guāng guǒ shí huǐ miè men néng shǐ huān yuè
    ( 17·645 héng 47)  yòng yòu xiàn de shēng mìng kàng xiàn de kùn nánzài duǎn de shēng zhōng shǐ shēng mìng zuì xiàn duódì huò zhǎn xiàn shēn de jià zhíshǐ zài kàng zhēng de zuì chì liè de diǎn shàng shǎn shuò chū yǒng zhì huì jìn de guāng huázhè biàn shì de yǒng shì men de rén shēngfán rén shì chōng 'ér yòu chōng shēn de xiàn de bēi zhuànglìng jiànyīng xióngjié)。 hěn míng xiǎnzhè shì rén shēng de bēi shì rén shēng de háosuī rán zhè zhù zài hòu shì de bēi zuò jiāyóu shì suǒ de zuò pǐn zhōng dào liǎo lín jìn zhì de huī héng héng men yào wàng shì de shǒu xiān jiào men kàn dào rén shēng de bēi rén shēng de yīng lièrén shēng de miǎo xiǎo wěi
  
                    yīng xióng
  
     àn zhào de guān diǎnyīng xióng huò zhuàng shì shì shén de hòu tiān zhī jiāo fán rén zhōng de chǒng 'éryīng xióng men bèi fán rén suǒ xiàn de qiēshì 'ā kāi rén zhōng de jùn jié( aristeespanachaion)。 men chū shēn gāo guìrén réndōu yòu xiǎn de mén kuā yào de jiā zuò fāngwáng tǒng tiān xià men xiàngmào jùn měi biǎo táng táng qún zài yún yún zhòng shēng zhī zhōngā liú shì nán xìng měi de diǎn fàn(《 ào sài》 11·470)。 qián wǎng shú 'ér de 'ā zàimǎn liǎo chī de wàng hòu”, níng 'ā liú
     jīng de jùn měigāo tǐng de shēn jiù xiàng
     shén míng bān……( 24·630 héng 31)  zài luò chéng lóu shàng 'ā wàng zhe 'ā mén nóng de xióng kāi kǒu wèn dàoduì hǎi lún):
     zǒu jìn xiēgào de míng wěi 'àn de yǒng shì
     shì shuí wèi qiáng jiànzhuàng shí de 'ā kāi rén
     cóng wèi jiàn guò chū lèi cuì de rén
     zhè gāo háo de pài héng héng rén shì wèi wáng guì!( 3·166 héng 70)  yīng xióng 'é xiū suī shuō 'ā mén nóng 'ǎi liǎo tóudàn de jiān bǎng xiōng bèi què cháng gèng wéi kuān hòu( 3·193 héng 94)。
     yīng xióng men bǎng kuò yāo yuán niúāi 'ā de zhàn dùn xiàng miàn wéi qiángér 'ā liú jǐn píng zhī tǒng jiǎn kǒngde chā gàng yào sān 'ā kāi rén fāng néng shuān lǒng kāi( 24·454 héng 56)。 shuò de shí yándāng jīn zhī rén biàn zhàn chū liǎng nài ér diū zhī 'é què jǐn píng zhī qīng sōng gāo guò tóu( 5·303- 4)。 hěn ránzài kàn láishén de xuè màigāo guì de wáng jiā yào shì méi yòu guò rén de yǒng shì huāng táng deyīng xióng shì liàng de xiàng zhēng
     jìn guǎn zhàn zhēng shì de”、“ hèn de”、“ rén de”, zhuàng shì men què shì zhàn mìng,“ wàng zhechōng zhàn shā pǐn wèizhàn dǒu de yuè”。 yǒng gǎn zhàn dǒu shì chuán de xùn láo duì qiū 'é rǎng dàojiā
     yào yīng yǒng zuò zhàn shuídōu yǒng gǎn qiú chū rén tóu
     zhì méi de qián bèishēngzhǎng zài 'è
     liáo kuò de de zuì yǒng gǎn de rén。( 6·208 héng 10) men jǐn shì zhànér qiě shàn zhàn héng héng tiān xià yòu yīng xióng huì zhàng de dào miàn duì 'āi 'ā de wēi xié tuō 'ěrzài hái shì chāo liú de zhàn jiāngzhēn fēng xiāng duìkāi kǒu zuò liǎo fān jiè shào”:
     qǐng shú zhàn de mén dàoshā rén shì jīng tōng de jué huó
     zhī dào zuǒ yòu dǎngyòng niú jiān rèn de
     zhàn dùn nǎi fáng wèi de gāo zhāo
     zhī dào jià zhe kuài shā rén fēi páo de chē zhèn
     zhī dào gōng zhàndàng kāi zhàn shén tòu zhe shā de 。( 7·237 héng 41)  zhuàng shì men jǐn shàn shǐ qiāng máoér qiě néng yòng kǒu shé shǐ shī zhōng de yīng xióng shì kǒu cái chū zhòng de biàn zhěxíng dòng guǒ gǎn de yǒng shì( 9·443, lìng jiàn 2·273, 18·105 héng 6, 18·252)。 yǒng měng háo qiángxióng biàn tāo tāofāng wéi yīng xióng běn fán rén de jiē huì chǎng tóng zhàn chǎng yàngshì rén menzhēng róng de fāng”( 1·490)。 zuò wéi 'ā liú de rén jiào shī jiào shòu biàn shuō de qiǎo huò běn lǐngyīn wéi xióng biànshǐ rén chū lèi cuì”。 néng móu shàn biàn de 'é xiū zhī suǒ shòu dào quán jūn de 'ài dàichú liǎo zuò zhàn yǒng gǎn shòu dào diǎn de bié guān zhào wàichū zhòng de biàn cái shì lüè de yuán yīn luò zhì zhě 'ān nuò 'ěr zàn shǎng nài láo de biǎo shùrèn wéi yòng jīng liànchū yán xùn jiédàn què gèng wéi zàn shǎng 'é xiū de wěn zàn de fēng lún de huà biàn
     dàn shìdāng hóng liàng de shēng yīn chōng chū de dān tián xiàng dōng tiān de
     xuě piàn yàng fēn fēn yáng yáng piāo lái shífán rén zhōng jiù huì yòu de duì shǒu
     shuí néng 'é xiū de kǒu cái!( 3·221 héng 23)  wén shuāng quán de nài tuō 'ěrsuī shuō nián qīng qīngzài nián qīng shí dài), què néng zhēng zhàn lüèhuān yuè qīn de xīn xiōng( 11·682 héng 84); yòng de huáng zhī shé jiāng bēn shuǐ bān de biàn cáizhēng tóng liáo men de 'àishǐ men qīng tīng de jiànzūn zhòng de yán lùn( 1·273)。 nián qīng de 'é shì zhàn chǎng shàng de zhù jiāngyòu shì huì chǎng shàng de jīng yīng de cái huá liǎo lǎo yīng xióng nài tuō 'ěr de chēng zàn
     diū zhī lùn zhàn dǒu yǒngguàn quán jūn
     lùn móu biàn shì tóng líng rén zhōng de jiǎo jié
     ā kāi rén zhōngshuí néng qīng shì de jiàn
     fǎn de yán lùn……
    …… miàn duì 'ā 'ěr wéi rén de
     wáng zhěshuō huà tóu tóu shì dàotiáo fēn míng。( 9·53 héng 59)  guò 'é de biàn cái hái méi yòu zhēn dēng fēng zào de shuǐ píngyīn wéi hái nián qīng héng héng lùn nián líng zuò nài tuō 'ěr de 'ér ,“ zuì xiǎo de 'ér ”。
     yīng xióng shì jiè de jià zhí guān de zhōng xīn nèi róng shì time( róng shēng miàn )。 men rén de róng zūn yán kàn zuò shì shēng mìng gèng zhòng yàoyīn 'ér shì gèng guì de dōng sǔn hài zhuàng shì de time, duó zǒu yīnggāi shǔ de suǒ yòu wèi zhe de mào fànwéi de time wéi de rén jiā de míng rén guān de gōng zhèng dike。 xiǎn rán guǒ zhǎn dāng , time shì yīng xióng tuī xiàng at6 hubris( jiàn xià wénde zhòng yào de jià zhí guān fāng miàn de yīn yǒng biàn cái shì yīng xióng shǒu zhōng de liǎng zhǒng tōng guò menzhuàng wéi jiā zhēng cái zūn róngwéi chígǒng hàn wèi yòu de shè huì wèifēn pèi
     yōng zhì yīng xióng shì wán rén de tóng menzhì shǎo men zhōng de duō rénkùn rén shēng de xiànshòu niàn de zhī pèi time de cuī yòu zhe bǐng xìng huò xìng shàng de ruò diǎn huò quē diǎnyóu 'ā mén nóng de kuáng bàoduó zǒu 'ā liú de bàncóng 'ér dǎo zhì zhè wèi lián jūn zhōng zuì jié chū de zhuàng yǒng xié zhànshǐ rén zāo shòu cǎn zhòng de shāng wángdāng · diǎn cóng tiān shàng xià fánshì zhǐ 'ā liú 'ā mén nóng huǒ bìng shípéi liú zhī kāi kǒu wèn dào
     dài 'āi de zhòu de hái wèihé xiàn shí jiàng línxiǎng kàn kàn
     ā róu zhī kàn kàn 'ā mén nóng de jiāo héng ( hubris)
    ( l·202- 3)  nài tuō 'ěr píng 'ā mén nóng bèi gāo 'ào kuáng méng zhù liǎo shuāng yǎn liǎo quán jūn zuì hǎo de zhàn yǒngā mén nóng jiē shòu de zhǐ chéng rèn shì fēng liǎo…… xiā liǎo yǎntīng rèn 'è de shǐ”( 9·116 héng 19), bìng yuàn chū fēng hòu de cháng guò shī gǎn tàn dàoshì luó nuò zhī tuī liǎo kuáng máng( ate) de xiàn jǐng( 9·18)。 tóng yàngā liú de bēi yòu shēn fāng miàn de yuán yīn zhígāng kuáng mánlián shēn biān zuì qīn de bàn yǒu duì wēi yánshuō gāng liè bàoshèn zhì duì zhī rén dòng huǒ”( 11·654)。“ rén quán rán miànhéng héng 'ā luó dào héng héngxīn xiōng kuáng mánpiān wán zhíniùxiàng tóu shī chén de yǒng gāo 'ào”( 24·40 héng 42)。 miàn duì 'ā liú chóngxīn chū zhàn de yán miàntóu nǎo lěng jìng de quàn shuō tuō 'ěr tuì bīng chéng bǎo biàn zài chéng nèi kàng 'ā kāi rén de jìn gōngdàn tuō 'ěr dàn tīng zhōng gàofǎn 'érè hěn hěn dīng zhe ”, gǒu xuè pēn tóu tuō 'ěr de mánhèng bào nüè zào chéng liǎo yán zhòng de hòu guǒ zàng huǐ liǎo jūn duì de qián chéngduàn sòng liǎo de xìng mìng
  
                    shén
  
     miáo shù liǎo hàodòu deshàn lìng 'ér huì huò hěn shǎo jìn hángdào shuō jiào de shén de qún shǐ shī de zhòng shén shì zhòng shēng de shì zuò wéi dào jiē de shì zuò wéi fán rén de jīng shén tuō de hǎn shī rén rén de xíng xiàngxìng qíngxīn tài xíng wéi fāng shì wéi yuán xíngchuàng zào huò zào liǎo shén de qún zài shǐ shī shén men 'àn rén de xīn dòng kǎo xíng dòngyòu zhe rén de qíng liù yán yòng rén de shè qún diǎnrén de jiāo shìshén men fēn xiǎng rén de ruò diǎn dào fāng miàn de wán shàn héng héng shén shì de fán rénzài shí dàishén rén de jiāo wǎng shì zhí jiē 'ér deshén de cānyù guàn chuānzhuó zhěng de jìn chéngshén zài huò yào de rèn shí hòuchú fēi shòu dào zhòu de zhǐxià dào fán jiānxún zhǎo rèn yào zhǎo de fán réntán lùn rèn xiǎng yào tán lùn de shì qíngzuò wéi zhǒng gōu tōng de fāng shìfán rén tōng guò dǎo qiú shén de bāng zhù
     fán rén yàngshén jiā tíng huò jiā de xíng shì cún zàiér zhòu shì shén jiè de jiāzhǎng huò chángshén jiè de quán wēi shèn zhì rén jiān gèng míng xiǎn jué dān chún de jiā yǎn shì de huò píng jiè lún de shén zhòu tuī fān liǎo qīn luó nuò de tǒng zhìduó shén jiè de wáng wèié lín zhòng shén zhōng shuí gǎn kàng héngmèng xiǎng zhēng yīn wéi zhòu de yǒng yuǎn fēi zhū shén suǒ néng shòu jǐng gào duō guǎn xián shì de yòng xiāng dāng bàoyán
     shàng de zuǐjìng jìng zuò dào biān àn shuō de bàn héng héng
     fǒu dāng zǒu guò duì shuǎi kāi de shuāng zhǎn shì de
     shén shí
     é lín shān shàng de zhòng shénjiù shì quán chū dòng bāng liǎo de máng
    ( 1·565 héng 67)
     zhè shì chì luǒ luǒ de de shì jièdāng ránzhòu shì yòu yǒng móu de mǎng hàn shìgōng xīn de luó nuò de 'ér néng móu shàn biànzhù chēngé lín zhòng shén fēn zuò liǎng pài pài zhī chí 'ā kāi rén diǎn wéi gǔgànlìng pài bāng zhù luò rén 'ā luó 'āi 'ā wéi xīnzhòu shí 'ér piān tǎn zhè fāngshí 'ér fàng zòng fāngcóng zhōng xiǎng shòu quán shì dài lái de yuè céng yán jǐng gào céng běn zhèng jīng wēi xié sài dōngyǎn rán líng jià liǎng pài zhī shàng de shén zhù múyàngrán 'ér cóng lái xiǎng rèn zhēn jiě jué liǎng pài zhī jiān de zhēng duān huān yuǎn zhòng shénjìng jìng zuò zài 'é lín huò de fēng biǎo shì de chāo qún héng héng shì zhòu de zhù tóng fán rén liú suǒ tǒng guǎn de shén qún。“ yuǎn yuǎn zuò zài guān xīn men men fàng zài yǎn ”( 15·105 héng 6)。 xīng zhì shàng lái shí shèn zhì jiù zhe mǒu jiàn shì yóuzhǐ lìng shén jiè de liǎng pài chū shǒujiǎo tiān hūn 'àn yuè de xīn huái( 20·22 héng 25)。 zhèhuò jiù shì shén jiè de zhèng zhìér zhōng de zhòu shì dǒng yùn yòng quán shù shàn gǎo zhèng zhì píng héng de hángjiā
     tóng xìng de shén zhī xiāng fán rén shì lián dehuò bēi de”。 rén de chéng shì huà yòng shì deiloisibrotoisi( bēi de zhòng shēng)。 shén de shēng huóyóu chāo yuè liǎo de jìn xiànyīn 'ér méi yòu rén shēng de jiān nán quē shǎo rén shēng de yán hòu zhòngàn zhào shī rén de guān diǎnshén men suǒ dāng rán yōng yòu rén xiǎng yào 'ér yòu me róng huò de dōng bìng men zèng sòng gěi lián dezài xīn zhì fāng miàn shòu dào xiàn de fán rénduì zhè xiē xìng de cāng shēngshén shì yǒng zhì huì quán wēi de zào zhěā liú píng zhe shén de zhù 'ér yǒngguàn qún xióngā mén nóng píng jiè shén de quán zhàng wáng tǒng 'ā 'ěr wéi rén guǒ shuō mǒu rén bié cōng míng shì yīn wéi shén gěi liǎo zhì huìxiāng fǎncháng ruò yòu rén gān chū shǎ shì jiù néng shì yīn wéi shén men duó zǒu liǎo de ruì zhìshén gěi liǎo 'ěr zhàn de shù( 1·71), gěi liǎo fěi ruì luò zhì zuò de jué ( 5·59 héng 61), shǐ fěi 'é huò chàng shī de líng gǎn(《 ào sài》 22·347)。 hǎo liè shǒu de zhī 'ā 'ěr de jiào huìhǎo shè shǒu de qiáng gōng zhī 'ā luó de kuì zèng
     de shǐ shī shì jiè cún zàimáng ”、“ ǒu ránhuò shì tài de zhèng cháng bān zhuàng tài duì 'ér yán deǒu xiàn xiàng”。 rán jiè rén shì jiān de qiē shì duān xiàn xiàng guǒ shì rén wéi debiàn shì shén de shǒu léi diàn shì zhòu sòng lái de zhèn shì sài dōng zhì dǎo dexìng 'ài shì 'ā luó sǒng de。《 méi yòu shénme néng jiě shì de shì qíngduì rén zuò chū de zhòng jué dìng bān cǎi yòngshuāngchóng dòng yīnde jiě cóng zhōng men kàn dào rén de zuò yòngzài shǐ shī rénjìn guǎn duō zāi duō nándàn jué shì qīng zhòng de)。 ā liú zuò chū duó 'ā liú bàn de jué dìng yīn wéi shēng xìng gāng mánèr yīn wéi shòu dào shén de shǐ( 19·86 héng 90)。 tóng yàng diǎn de quàn 'ā liú de jué shǐ miǎn liǎo 'ā mén nóng de huǒ bìng( 1·188 héng 218)。 zài jiǔ juàn 'é yán 'ā liú jiāng chóngfǎn zhàn chǎngshòu xīn líng de shǐshén míng de cuī ( 703)。 duì xiē zhòng zhàn shì sài shìde chǔlǐ cháng cháng yán yòng zhè fāng luó luò shén fán rén zhàn de hùn tóng yàng tuō 'ěr de wáng guī zhī 'ā liú de xiāo yǒng diǎn de bāng máng
     àn zhào de shén xué guānchú liǎo shén wàirén shēng hái shòu dào lìng zhǒng chāo rán de liàng mìng yùn huò mìng xiàn( moira, aisa) de zhì yuē bǎi duì mìng yùn bān zuò rén huà de miáo shù wài, moira méi yòu jiā xiàng bān shén zhī shén líng yàng zhǎo chū zōng sān dài。 Moira de liàng zhù yào zài xiàn dìng rén shēng de cháng huò xiàn fán rén zài chū shēng de dài shàng wáng de yīn yǐng( 20·127 héng 28, 23·78 héng 79, 24·209 héng 10)。 fán rén bān néng tōng guò dǎo jiě tuō mìng yùn de shù zhì shǎo cóng lùn shàng lái shuōmìng yùn shì zài dìng chéng shàng bèi chōng huò chāo yuè dezài 'èr shí juàn zhòu duì zhòng shén shuō dàoxié zhe yóu luó luò zhī yǐn de bào ā liú néng chōng mìng yùn de zhì yuēgōng chéng bǎo( 29 héng 30)。 zuò wéishén rén de qīn”, suǒ néng suí zhòu rán yòu chōng mìng yùn de shén zài 'ài 'ěr péi dōng qiánzhòu céng kǎo jiù zhàn chǎngzhǐ shì yīn wéi zāo dào de qiáng liè fǎn duì 'ér zuò
     suàn jiù chū bēi cǎn de wáng fán rén
     mìng zhù dìng yào de fán rén
     zuò zhòu dàn děng zhòng shén jué huì zhì zàn tóng。( 16·441 héng 43) jiàn guǒ yuàn zhòu jiù chū 'ěr péi dōngdàn zhè me zuò néng huì yǐn zhòng shén de fǎn gǎndài chū liè lián suǒ fǎn yìng huài tiān de xiéchǎn shēng nán de jiēguǒ
  
                  chéng bǎo bīng mín
  
     shǐ shī de xīn shè dān wèi shì chéng bǎo huò chéng zhèn( polis, astu, Ptoliethron)。 Polis shì bīng mín de huì diǎnyòu shì kàng rén jìn fàn de bǎo lěi shì shè huì huó dòng de zhōng xīnyòu shì jìn xíng mào xíng zōng jiào shì de chǎng suǒā liú de zhàn dùn shàng zhù zhe liǎng zuò chéng shì zhōng fǎn yìng liǎo bīng mín men zài zhàn zhēng píng shí de liǎng zhǒng tóng de shēng huó jǐng zhuàngchéng bǎo de wài wéi yòu piàn nóng huò xiāng cūn agros huò erga; chéng shì xiāng cūn chéng huò ”( demos, gaia)。 guǎng shàng de polis wǎng wǎng bāo kuò chéng zhènjiāo chéng chéng wài de rén mín héng héng yóu chéng shǐ shī zhōng de běn de zhèng zhì shí
     chéng bǎo de tǒng zhì zhě shì basileus( guó wángwáng zhě); mǒu xiē wáng zhě huò tǒng zhì zhě 'ā mén nóng děngyōng yòu shàng de chéng zhènér wáng zhě zhù de chéng bǎo wéi zhèng zhìjūn shì wén huà de zhōng xīnzhàn shí, basileus shì běn bīng mín de tǒng shuàixià shè ruò gān fēn duìyóu tóu lǐng men guǎn dài( 1·171 héng 72)。 zhòng yào de shè huì hángdāng bāo kuò xìn shǐ děngzài shǐ shī xiān zhī zhě jiàng hèshī rén tóng shǔgōng zuò zhě”( demiourgoi) de fàn chóu(《 ào sài》 17·383 héng 85), yòng de shǒu huò běn lǐng wèimín zhòng de rén yòng laos、 laoi、 plethus、 demos biǎo shì bān mín zhònghuò bīng dīng), lái chéng bǎo degōng mín”。 lái wài bāng de dìng zhě jiào metanastes huò xeinos( mín)。 yóu mín( thetes) shǔ yóu rén jiē céngméi yòu de bāng gōng wéi shēng wàizài jūn shì mín zhù zhì wéi zhēng de dài shè huì dāng rán huì méi yòu ( dmoes, dmoai)。 tóng fēn de zhàn zhàn pǐn yàng bān guī shǔ rén suǒ yòu
  
                wáng zhěbiàn huì huì
  
     zuò wéi guì de dài biǎowáng zhě shì chéng bāng huò shǔ nèi de zuì gāo jūn zhèng shǒu chángzài ā mén nóng lián jūn tǒng shuài de shēn fèn xióng zhòng wáng zhī shàng hòu zhě gèng jué de quán wēi。“ tǒng lǐng zhe hào hào dàng dàng de jūnhéng héng nài tuō 'ěr shuō dào héng héngzhòu wáng zhàng jiāo zài de shǒu shǐ yòu liǎo jué duàn de quán xùn dǎo huī xià de bīng dīng”( 998 héng 99)。 'é chéng rènā mén nóng yōng yòubié rén de zūn róng”( 9·37)。 nài tuō 'ěr quàn wèi shèng zhōng de 'ā liú yào 'ā mén nóng zhēng chǎo,“ zài róng de zhàn yòu shàngbié rén dào de fèn ”( 1·278)。 é xiū gèng shì zhí jié liǎo dāng jǐng gào huáng huáng bēn páo de bīng yǒngā kāi rén néng gèdōu shì wáng zhě,“ wáng zhě zhòng duō shì jiàn hǎo shì héng héng zhè zhǐ yīngyǒu tǒng zhì zhě wáng”( 2·203 héng 5)。 wáng zhě yōng yòu shàng hǎo de fèn ( temenos), xiǎng yòu shuài xiān tiǎo zhàn ( geraas) de quánjiē shòu zhǔmín de gòng fèngzài yàn huì shàng men xiǎng zuò zūn wèichī yòng fèn de ròu shí yǐn mǎn bēi de chún jiǔzuò wéi duì quán de píng héngwáng zhě yòu yàn qǐng gòng shì de shǒu lǐng quán guìzài jiǔ juàn nài tuō 'ěr héng héng zài zuò guò fān míng zhì de quàn hòu héng héng duì 'ā mén nóng shuō dàoxiàn zài
     yìng yóu ā mén nóngzuò wéi zuì gāo guì de wáng zhěxíng shǐ tǒng shuài de zhí quán
     bǎi kāi yàn zhāo dài wèi shǒu lǐngzhè shì de de
     shēn fèn xiāng 。……( 9·69 héng 71)
     shǐ shī de wáng zhě jìn guǎn gāng 'ào mǎng kuáng lièdàn què shì diǎn xíng shàng de bào jūnshì shí shàngzài zhèng zhì shèn zhì zài jūn shì fāng miànzuì gāo tǒng shuài de quán shòu dào biàn huì( Boulegeronton) de chè zhǒuyùhuì de gerontes( shǒu lǐngtōng cháng běn shēn shì wáng zhě héng héng zhàn chǎng shàng men shì tǒng bīng de jiàngshuài men xiǎng yòu hěn gāo de wēi wàngyán xíng qīng zhòngā mén nóng rèn zhēn qīng tīng men de jiànàn zuì hǎo de bàn xíng shì( 9·74 héng 75)。
     biàn huì shàng shāng tǎo guò de shì qíng guǒ shì guān zhòng hái yào jiāo huì huò huì( agore huò agora) de tǎo lùn tōng guòzài ā kāi rén de huì kuò dào tōng de laioi; ér luò rén de huì hái bāo kuò nián lǎo ruò de fēi zhàn dǒu rén yuányòu wèi de yán zhě bān yào shǒu wáng zhàng de fāng shì jiǎng huàshǒu lǐng men zūn cóngyán lùn yóude yuán zài huì shàng nǎi men de quán ( 9·33)。 Gerontes duì rèn rén chū píngshèn zhì mán ), bāo kuò duì zuì gāo jūn shì shǒu cháng 'ā mén nóng guòduì wèi jiào xià de rénqíng kuàng jìn xiāng tóng zhě 'ěr dān xīn de zhēn yán huì zhāo lái 'ā mén nóng de bào zhǐ shì zài dào 'ā liú de chéng nuò hòufāng cái dào chū 'ā luó wèihé de yuán yīnduì shēn fèn gòuchī zhòngde rén wáng zhě zhǐ néng zhāo lái fán xìngbīng zhòng men tōng guò hǎn biǎo shì men de qīng xiàng zhì héng héng shì zàn chénghái shì fǎn duì
  
                    chuān dài
  
     zài shǐ shī rén men chuānzhuó shí fēn jiǎn dānnán men jīn shēn chuān yòng jiàn yòng zhì zhì de shānhuò chēng zhī wéi tào shān), chiton, rán hòu guǒ yào de huàzhào shàng jiànhuò tiáo péng huò péng( chlaina, pharos)。 bān rèn wéi, chiton shì wài lái jìn lín shǎn rén de yòng 。 Chiton shàng xiàduǎn xiùzài 'èr juàn ā mén nóng shēn hòuchuān shàng jiàn xīn de chiton lǐng shuò de pharos。 ā kāi rén cóng 'ā jìn sòng de shú zhōng liú chū jiàn chiton jiàn pharos, zuò wéi zhē guǒ de yòng ( 24·588)。 zhàn qián diǎn chuān shàng qīn de chiw, rán hòu kòu shàng xiōng jiá chlainai liào yáng máofēn dān céng jiā céngshuāng céngliǎng zhǒngyòng shì zhēn huò gōu kòu lián ( 10·133)。 péng shàng zhì chū jīng měi de wénbìng rǎn chéng shēn hóngjiàng děng shì gǎn zhuāng zhòng de cǎi。 Chlainai pharos de biéjīn rén 'ér zhīdàn yòu diǎn kěn dìng 'èr zhě dōukě zuò gài zhī yòngā liú de shǔ men yòng chlainai wéi 'ā bèi chuáng( 24·646); 'ěr dōng bīng yǒng men jiāng luó luò tái shàng shī chuánggài shàng céng báobáo de yòng tiáo bái de pharos zhào yǎn quán shēn( 18·352 héng 53)。 shèn zhì zuò fēng fān de yòng liào(《 ào sài》 5·258)。 zài zhè xiē shàng xià wén , chlaina pharos piàn de zhì méi yòu shénme liǎng yàngbīng yǒng men bān dèng tiáo xié néng liào jiān rèn de niú
     men tōng cháng shēn zhe qún shān( peplos, heanos), bìng nán yàngchuān yòng pharos。 Peplos duǎn xiù yòng shì zhēn bié lián qún shān cháng bái liàng de běn zhì chū zhǒng tiáo wénrǎn chū duō zhǒng cǎi néng yáng máo zhì liàohéng héng yòng míng dǒu kāi jīn hóng de qún páo”( 8·1) biǎo xiàn shǔ guāng xiè de guī jǐng qún shān bān cháng chuí zhí xiè, hebewi( cháng qún piāo bǎi deshì hǎo de chéng shì huà shì men jīhū wài shǐ yòng yāo dàizhā zài peplos。 wài miàn héng héngshù yāo jǐn shēn deshù yāo xiù měi dezhèng shì duì zhè zhuāng shù guàn de tiē qiē 'ér yòu yòu shī de xiě zhào
     men tōng cháng dài yòng tóu jīn( kredemnon, kaluptre), néng zhǒng zhì 。 Kredemon cóng tóu dǐng zhē xiàngshèn zhì néng chuí guò jiān tóucháng ruò yàoyòng zhě jiāng tóu jīn yǎn liǎn miàn tóng péi nài luó pèi zài zǒu qiú hūn zhě men de tīng táng
  
                  hòu kǎi jiá
  
     běn shēn méi yòu jīng guò luò zhàn zhēng shǐ shī shì chuán tǒng tiān cái chuàng zuò de chǎn ér shì yán shàng de shǐxiàng duì xiē shì zhuàng tài xiàn xiàng de miáo shù yàng duì bīng xiè de miáo shù dài yòukuà shí dàide zhēng suǒ de jiá xièyòu de shǔ kǎi nài shí de yòng yòu de néng chū xiàn zài hòushèn zhì wǎn zhì shēng huó de nián dàisuǒ wèi shǐ shīshì shī shǐ de jié ér qiě yīnggāi yòu xiē shǐ shíshèn zhì píng kōng xiǎng xiàng chū lái de chéngfèn
    ( 1) jìng jiá
    “ jìng jiá jiān de”( euknemides) shì xíng róng 'ā kāi shì bīng de zuì cháng yòng de chéng shì huà shì zài zhōng chū xiàn liǎo sān shí zǎo de jìng jiá néng yòng shēng niú shèn zhì zhì chénglèi lāi 'ěr zài táo yuán gōng zuò shí suǒ yòu de zhì tuǐ(《 ào sài》 24·228 héng 29)。 zài kǎi nài shí dàitóng jìng jiá de shǐ yòng bìng biàncóng yuán wén kàn, knemis( jìng jiáběn shēn bìng bāo hánjīn shǔde zài ,“ jìng jiá qīng tóng de( chalkoknemides) ā kāi rénjǐn chū xiàn ( 7·41)。 tuō yòng bái wéi 'ā liú guò jìng jiádàn zhè shì shén gōng de zhù pǐn néng zhòng tóngjìng jiá shàng 'ān zhe yín zhì de bàn kòuwéi zài jiǎo huái biānjìng jiá de gōng yòng dǎng rén de shèèr bǎo xiǎo tuǐ shòu dùn páizhē yǎn quán shēn de dùnjiàndùn páijiéde shānggōng zhàn zhě bān yòng jiào xiǎo de yuán dùnsuǒ cháng cháng dài jìng jiá
    ( 2) xiōng jiá
     jìn guǎn dào qián wéi zhǐkǎo zhàn xué jiā men hái chū jiàn shí zhèng míng kǎi nài wáng cháo de shì men héng héng zhèng suǒ miáo shù de yàng héng héng shìshēn tóng jiá de”, dàn jiàn shī rén 'ér zàizài 'ér sān shǐ yòng zhè chéng shì huà tào shǎo 'èr shí de xiàn shí men hěn yòu yào zài zhè wèn shàng cǎi yán jǐn shèn de tài 。“ shēn tóng jiá deyuán wén zuò chalkochitones( chuān qīng tóng chiton de); Chiton zài jiáhuòjiá ”。 háo huái 'ā kāi yǒng shì shìshēn tóng jiá de”( chaleorekon)。 tuō 'ā liú guò tóng jiáōu luò shōu shòu guò tóng jiá de shǎng guǒ shuō zhè liǎng tóng jiá shì shén gōng zhì zuò de jīng pǐnlìng shì kuì zèng de 'ér shuō míng tōng xiōng jiá de zhì mezài lìng xiē jiào wéi bān de chǎng miáo shù de thorekes( xiōng jiá tóng yàng míng xiǎn bāo róngjīn shǔ zhì zuòde hán shī rén de yòng bāo kuòshǎn liàng de”、“ zèng liàng deděng děngxiǎo 'āi 'ā luò rén 'ān fěi 'é chuān yòng xiōng jiázhōng jiān néng yòu suǒ chōng tián), dàn men bìng shì liú de zhàn jiāngzài mǒu xiē shàng xià wén hái zhǒng jiào zuò guala de dōng ( 15·530), néng zhǐ xiōng jiá qián hòu de tóng piànzhuì qiàn zài huò zhì liào de jiá miàn shàng zēng qiáng thorekes de fáng néng
    ( 3) dùn pái
     Sakose aspis néng yuán zhǐ liǎng zhǒng tóng de zhàn dùn。 Aspis tōng cháng shìdùn miàn de”( omphaloessa)、“ liù yuán de”( pantoseise, ér cháng cháng shìshuò jiān de”( mpgatestibaronte)、“ yòng céng niú zhì zuò de”( haptaboeion)、 qiáng miàn shìdehuò bān de”( eutepurgos)。 dào liǎo shēng huó de nián dài, aspis sakos hěn néng chéng wéi huàn de tóng
     kǎo xiàn kǎi nài shí dài de zhàn yǒng men shǐ yòng liǎng zhǒng shuò zhē yǎn quán shēn de dùn zhǒng wéi cháng fāng xíng deshuāng biān nèi juàn de gǒng dùnlìng zhǒng shì zhōng yāo nèi shōuchéng 8 xíng de dùnèr zhě dōuyòu dùn dài( telamon), bèi kuà zuǒ jiān zhī shànghéng guàn yòu zhī xià yòng shí shuǎi zhì bèi hòu。《 zhōng duō lèi céng miàn shuò de zhàn dùnāi 'ā shēn bèiqiáng miàn shìde dùn( 7·219), ér tuō 'ěr de dùn pái zhē yǎn xiàjiǎo huái shàng de shēn wèi( 15·646)。 shǐ shī de zhàn hòu tōng cháng shìshǎn liàng dehuòshǎn guāng de”, lèi shì míng xiǎn zhǐ dùn miàn huò miàn shàng de tóng céng kǎi nài wáng cháo de hòu shì fǒu chū xiàn dài tóng miàn de dùndào qián wéi zhǐ men hái néng zuò chū què qiē de
     yuán xíng zhàn dùn jiào xiǎozhōng xīn dài wényòu bēidàichū xiàn kǎi nài wáng cháo de hòu néng shì gōng yuán qián jiǔ zhì shì de shǐ shī shī rén men zài shēng huó zhōng cháng jiàn de dùn shì
    ( 4) tóu kuī
     yòng korus、 kunee、 truphaleia pelex děng biǎo shì tóu mào huò mào kuīzhè xiē yuán lái néng fēn zhǐ tóng de kuī yàngdàn zài shǐ shī tōng yòng de xìng zhì zài tóng shàng xià wén yòng shàng shù míng shì quán zhǐ chēng tóng dǐng tóu kuīshàng shù zhōngqián 'èr zhě gèng jiào cháng yòng
     zǎo de tóu kuī bān wéi liào zhì pǐnzhē gài tóu dǐngqián 'é tài yáng xuéyóu kuī dài jǐn kòu xià guān dǐng chā zhuì zōngquè qiē shuōyìng wéi máobāo kuò zōng mǎyǐ), yòu de hái dài jiǎo zhì de huò jīn shǔ de jiǎo( Phalos)。
     zài shǐ shī tóu kuī bān yòng liào jīn shǔhuò dài yòu jīn shǔ de piànmǒu xiē shì chalkeres( tóng guāng shǎn shuò de phaeinos( zhèng liàng deděngmíng xiǎn gào shì tóu kuī de jīn shǔ xìng zhìzài ruò gān shàng xià wén gān cuì zài tóu kuī qián hòu jiā shàngtóngchēng wéitóng kuī”( chalkeiekorus, kuneepagchalkos)。 jiān chū xiàn de chalkopareios děng biǎo míng tóu kuī dài yòu qīng tóng de jiá piàn láixué zhě men duì phalos de suǒ zhǐ nán néng zhì de jiě shìyòu de jiě zuò jiǎohuò mǒu zhǒng xíng shì de chū yòu de guān ”, hái yòu de děng tóng jiá piàn”。 tóu kuī de yòng liào shì yàng dāng zhǐ xiàn zhǒng zài shí juàn gěi liǎo 'é dǐng mào kuī,“ niú zuò jiù jiǎo méi yòu kuī guān”( 257 héng 58); ér 'é nài gěi 'é xiū dài shàng dǐng kuī,“ wài miàn shì pái pái xuě bái de piàn”,“ zhōng jiān diàn zhe céng róng zhān”( 262 héng 65)。 zhǒng piàn miàn de tóu kuī zài chū de kǎi nài wén zhōng yòu xiàn
    ( 5) jiàn
     Xiphos、 aor phasganon sān jūn jiàn”, shàng méi yòu míng xiǎn de biézài tóng shàng xià wén céng yòng zhè sān biǎo zhǐ tóng bǐng jiànzài shǐ shī jiàn zhàn de chǎng duō méi yòu duàn de miáo shù。“ qiàn zhuì yín dīng de”( arguloelon) men dài dào yáo yuǎn de kǎi nài shí dàizhàn jiàn qīng tóngdài qiàoyòu bēidài xié kuà jiān tóu
    ( 6) qiāng máo
     cháng qiāng shì zhōng de zhù yào bīng zài chéng shì huà de zhuāng zhànchǎng jǐng zhōngā liú cāo yīgǎn cháng qiāng( egchos), ér 'ā mén nóng luó luò liǎng zhī qiāng máo( doUle)。 EgChO6 jiào wéi zhòngcháng shuò chángchén zhòngde)” wéi shì zài shí liù juàn luó luò chuān 'ā liú de kǎi jiádàn què céng zhuā de qiāng máo,“ wán ……( chú liǎo 'ā liú ā kāi rén zhōng shuí ”( 141 héng 42)。 bān rèn wéi, egchos yòng zhù yào yòng jìn zhàn tǒngér douree zhù yào yòng yuǎn de tóu shè guòzài zhè liǎng tōng cháng huàn shǐ yòng yóuchéng xià xiphos phasganon de huàn
    ( 7) gōng jiàn gōng shǒu
     duì gōng de miáo shù duōzài juàn gào menpān luó de wān gōng tóu de shān yáng de chā jiǎo( 105 héng 6)。 zài yóu shì zài luò méng jūn fāng miàngōng( toxon) de shǐ yòng xiāng dāng biànzài rén yuán páng de bīng duì , agkulotoxoi( gōng shǒu shì zhuān mén de bīng zhǒng rén rén mài 'é réndōu shì shǐ gōng de bīng yǒngér shǒu lǐng pān luó gèng shì wèi zhī míng de hǎo gōng shǒu luò rén zhōng nuò duō lóng děngdōu shì xié gōng de zhàn jiāngā kāi rén shàn shǐ cháng qiānggōng shǒu xiāng duì shǎozhù yào yòu fěi luò 'é nài diū luó zài gōng jiàn shì zhǒng xiāng duì jiù de bīng shī rén xiǎn rán wéishǒu duì shǒude gōng zhàn gèng néng biǎo xiàn yīng xióng shā de zhuàng lièzài shí juàn 'é duì shǐ gōng de yòu wēi ( 385)。
     jiàn shǐ bān wéi tóng tóudàn pān luó de jiàn què tiě wéi
    ( 8) zhàn chē
     zhàn chē( diphros) bān wéi jià jié gòubiān wéi miàn yòng tiáo bǎng zhā jiǎn qīng chē shēn de zhòng liàng rén dǐng tái, 10·504 héng 5), yòu xiāo huǎn páo dòng shí de diān zhàn chē zuò gōng jīng zhìyòu de shèn zhì dài yòu jīn yín de xiāng shì( 10·438)。 shén yòng de diphros, de zhàn chējīhū shì jīnyíntóng de pīn ( 5·722 héng 31)。
     zài zhàn chē de zuò yòng xiāng dāng jīn tiān de bīng chē jiāng zhàn chē zhì zhàn zhuàng shìtōng cháng zhǐ yòu réncóng chē shàng tiào xià jiè zhàn dǒuér shǒu liú zài hòu miànděng dài zhàn yǒng de huí guīzuò wéi zhǒng dìng xíng de zhàn shì de chǎn shēng gài duō shǎo dài yòu shī rénchuàng zuòde chéngfèn yīnggāi huì zhī dào diphros de zuò zhàn gōng yòngchú liǎo yùn bīng wài), dàn zài duì zhè fāng miàn de miáo shù què zhǐ yòu jué jǐn yòu de zài juàn lǎo bèi rén nài tuō 'ěr mìng zhǔ de shǔshuí dān chū huò tuì quèjiāo shǒu shíchē shàng de dǒu shì yào yòng cháng qiāng tǒng rén( 303 héng 7)。 nài tuō 'ěr xuān chēngguò zhè shì zhǒng xiāng dāng chéng gōng de zhàn shì


The Iliad is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems traditionally attributed to Homer. The poem is commonly dated to the 8th or 7th century BC, and many scholars believe it is the oldest extant work of literature in the ancient Greek language, making it the first work of European literature. The existence of a single author for the poems is disputed as the poems themselves show evidence of a long oral tradition and hence, possible multiple authors. The poem concerns events during the tenth and final year in the siege of the city of Ilion, or Troy, by the Greeks (See Trojan War). The word Iliad means "pertaining to Ilion" (in Latin, Ilium), the city proper, as opposed to Troy (in Turkish "Truva", in Greek, Τροία, Troía; in Latin, Troia, Troiae, f.), the state centered around Ilium, over which the names Ilium and Troy are often used interchangeably.
The story of the Iliad The Iliad begins with these lines: Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus, the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans... The first word of Homer's Iliad is the ancient Greek word μῆνιν (mēnin), rage or wrath. This word announces the major theme of the Iliad: the wrath of Achilles. When Agamemnon, the commander of the Greek forces at Troy, dishonors Achilles by taking Briseis, a slave woman given to Achilles as a prize of war, Achilles becomes enraged and withdraws from the fighting until Book XIX. Without him and his powerful Myrmidon warriors, the Greeks suffer defeat by the Trojans, almost to the point of losing their will to fight. Achilles re-enters the fighting when his cousin, Patroclus, is killed by the Trojan prince Hector. Achilles slaughters many Trojans and kills Hector. In his rage, he then refuses to return Hector's body and instead defiles it. Priam, the father of Hector, ransoms his son's body, and the Iliad ends with the funeral of Hector. Homer devotes long passages to frank, blow-by-blow descriptions of combat. He gives the names of the fighters, recounts their taunts and battle-cries, and gruesomely details the ways in which they kill and wound one another. Often, the death of a hero only escalates the violence, as the two sides battle for his armor and corpse, or his close companions launch a punitive attack on his killer. The lucky ones are sometimes whisked away by friendly charioteers or the intervention of a god, but Homeric warfare is still some of the most bloody and brutal in literature. The Iliad has a very strong religious and supernatural element. Both sides in the war are extremely pious, and both have heroes descended from divine beings. They constantly sacrifice to the gods and consult priests and prophets to decide their actions. For their own part, the gods frequently join in battles, both by advising and protecting their favorites and even by participating in combat against humans and other gods. The Iliad's huge cast of characters connects the Trojan War to many ancient myths, such as Jason and the Argonauts, the Seven Against Thebes, and the Labors of Hercules. Many ancient Greek myths exist in multiple versions, so Homer had some freedom to choose among them to suit his story. See Greek mythology for more detail. The action of the Iliad covers only a few weeks of the tenth and final year of the Trojan War. It does not cover the background and early years of the war (Paris' abduction of Helen from King Menelaus) nor its end (the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy). Other epic poems, collectively known as the Epic Cycle or cyclic epics, narrated many of these events; these poems only survive in fragments and later descriptions. See Trojan War for a summary of the events of the war.
Synopsis As the poem begins, the Greeks have captured Chryseis, the daughter of Apollo's priest Chryses, and given her as a prize to Agamemnon. In response, Apollo has sent a plague against the Greeks, who compel Agamemnon to restore Chryseis to her father to stop the sickness. In her place, Agamemnon takes Briseis, whom the Achaeans had given to Achilles as a spoil of war. Achilles, the greatest warrior of the age, follows the advice of his goddess mother, Thetis, and withdraws from battle in revenge. In counterpoint to Achilles' pride and arrogance stands the Trojan prince Hector, son of King Priam, a husband and father who fights to defend his city and his family. With Achilles on the sidelines, Hector leads successful counterattacks against the Greeks, who have built a fortified camp around their ships pulled up on the Trojan beach. The best remaining Greek fighters, including Odysseus and Diomedes, are wounded, and the gods favor the Trojans. Patroclus, impersonating Achilles by wearing his armor, finally leads the Myrmidons back into battle to save the ships from being burned. The death of Patroclus at the hands of Hector brings Achilles back to the war for revenge, and he slays Hector in single combat. Hector's father, King Priam, later comes to Achilles alone (but aided by Hermes) to ransom his son's body, and Achilles is moved to pity; the funeral of Hector ends the poem.
Book summaries Book 1: Nine years into the war, Agamemnon seizes Briseis, the concubine of Achilles, since he has had to give away his own; Achilles withdraws from the fighting in anger; in Olympus, the gods argue about the outcome of the war Book 2: Agamemnon pretends to order the Greeks home to test their resolve; Odysseus encourages the Greeks to keep fighting; Catalogue of Ships, Catalogue of Trojans and Allies Book 3: Paris challenges Menelaus to single combat over Helen while she watches from the walls of Troy with Priam; Paris is quickly overmatched by Menelaus, but is rescued from death by Aphrodite, and Menelaus is seen as the winner. Book 4: The truce is broken and battle begins Book 5: Diomedes has an aristeia (a period of supremacy in battle) and wounds Aphrodite and Ares Book 6: Glaucus and Diomedes greet each other during a truce; Hector returns to Troy and speaks to his wife Andromache Book 7: Hector battles Ajax Book 8: The gods withdraw from the battle Book 9: Called The Embassy to Achilles. Agamemnon retreats; his overtures to Achilles are spurned Book 10: Called the Doloneia. Diomedes and Odysseus go on a spying mission, kill the Trojan Dolon. Book 11: Paris wounds Diomedes; Achilles sends Patroclus on a mission Book 12: The Greeks retreat to their camp and are besieged by the Trojans Book 13: Poseidon encourages the Greeks Book 14: Hera helps Poseidon assist the Greeks; Deception of Zeus Book 15: Zeus stops Poseidon from interfering Book 16: Called the Patrocleia. Patroclus borrows Achilles' armour, enters battle, kills Sarpedon and then is killed by Hector Book 17: The armies fight over the body and armour of Patroclus Book 18: Achilles learns of the death of Patroclus and receives a new suit of armour. The Shield of Achilles is described at length Book 19: Achilles is reconciled with Agamemnon and enters battle Book 20: The gods join the battle; Achilles tries to kill Aeneas Book 21: Achilles does battle with the river Scamander and encounters Hector in front of the Trojan gates Book 22: Achilles kills Hector and drags his body back to the Greek camp Book 23: Funeral games for Patroclus Book 24: Called The Ransoming of Hector. Priam, the King of the Trojans, secretly enters the Greek camp. He begs Achilles for Hector's body. Achilles grants it to him, and it is taken away and burned on a pyre
After the Iliad Although the Iliad scatters foreshadowings of certain events subsequent to the funeral of Hector, and there is a general sense that the Trojans are doomed, Homer does not set out a detailed account of the fall of Troy. For the story as developed in later Greek and Roman poetry and drama, see Trojan War. The other Homeric poem, the Odyssey, is the story of Odysseus' long journey home from Troy; the two poems between them incorporate many references forward and back and overlap very little, so that despite their narrow narrative focus they are a surprisingly complete exploration of the themes of the Troy story.
Major characters The Iliad contains a sometimes confusingly great number of characters. The latter half of the second book (often called the Catalogue of Ships) is devoted entirely to listing the various commanders. Many of the battle scenes in the Iliad feature bit characters who are quickly slain. See Trojan War for a detailed list of participating armies and warriors. The Achaeans (Ἀχαιοί) - the word Hellenes, which would today be translated as Greeks, is not used by Homer. Also called Danaans (Δαναοί) and Argives ('Aργεĩοι). The Trojan men Polydamas, a young Trojan commander who sometimes figures as a foil for Hector by proving cool-headed and prudent when Hector charges ahead. Polydamas gives the Trojans sound advice, but Hector seldom acts on it. Agenor, a Trojan warrior who attempts to fight Achilles in Book 21. Agenor delays Achilles long enough for the Trojan army to flee inside Troy's walls. Dolon (Δόλων), a Trojan who is sent to spy on the Achaean camp in Book 10. Antenor (mythology), a Trojan nobleman, advisor to King Priam, and father of many Trojan warriors. Antenor argues that Helen should be returned to Menelaus in order to end the war, but Paris refuses to give her up. Polydorus, a Trojan prince and son of Priam and Laothoe. The Trojan women Hecuba (Ἑκάβη), Queen of Troy, wife of Priam, mother of Hector, Cassandra, Paris etc Helen (Ἑλένη), former Queen of Sparta and wife of Menelaus, now espoused to Paris Andromache (Ἀνδρομάχη), Hector's wife and mother of their infant son, Astyanax (Ἀστυάναξ) Cassandra (Κασσάνδρα), daughter of Priam, prophetess, first courted and then cursed by Apollo. As her punishment for offending him, she accurately foresees the fate of Troy, including her own death and the deaths of her entire family, but does not have the power to do anything about it. The Olympian deities, principally Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Hades, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Hermes and Poseidon, as well as the lesser figures Eris, Thetis, and Proteus appear in the Iliad as advisers to and manipulators of the human characters. All except Zeus become personally involved in the fighting at one point or another (See Theomachy).
Technical features The poem is written in dactylic hexameter. The Iliad comprises 15,693 lines of verse. Later ancient Greeks divided it into twenty-four books, or scrolls, and this convention has lasted to the present day with little change. Themes Nostos Nostos (Greek: νόστος) (pl. nostoi) is the ancient Greek word for homecoming. The word νόστος is used seven times in the Iliad (2.155,251, 9.413,434,622, 10.509, 16.82) and the theme is heavily explored throughout Greek literature, especially in the fortunes of the Atreidae returning from the Trojan War. The Odyssey, dealing with the return of Odysseus, is the most famous of these stories, but many surrounding other characters such as Agamemnon and Menelaus exist as well. In the Iliad, nostos cannot be obtained without the sacking of Troy, which is the driving force behind Agamemnon's will to win at any cost. Kleos Kleos (Greek: κλέος) is ancient Greek concept of glory that is earned through battle.[1] For many characters, most notably Odysseus, their kleos comes with their victorious return home (Nostos).[2] However, Achilles must choose between the two. In one of the most poignant scenes in the Iliad (9.410-416), Achilles tells Odysseus, Phoenix, and Ajax about the two fates (διχθαδίας κήρας 9.411) he must choose between.[3]. The passage reads: μήτηρ γάρ τέ μέ φησι θεὰ Θέτις ἀργυρόπεζα (410) διχθαδίας κῆρας φερέμεν θανάτοιο τέλος δέ. εἰ μέν κ’ αὖθι μένων Τρώων πόλιν ἀμφιμάχωμαι, ὤλετο μέν μοι νόστος, ἀτὰρ κλέος ἄφθιτον ἔσται• εἰ δέ κεν οἴκαδ’ ἵκωμι φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν, ὤλετό μοι κλέος ἐσθλόν, ἐπὶ δηρὸν δέ μοι αἰὼν (415) ἔσσεται, οὐδέ κέ μ’ ὦκα τέλος θανάτοιο κιχείη.[1] Richmond Lattimore, the renowned classical scholar, translates the passage as follows: For my mother Thetis the goddess of silver feet tells me I carry two sorts of destiny toward the day of my death. Either, if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting; but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers, the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life left for me, and my end in death will not come to me quickly. [2] Here Achilles acknowledges that he must lose his nostos in order to obtain his kleos. However, Achilles is not offered just kleos, but kleos aphthiton (Greek: κλέος ἄφθιτον), or "fame imperishable."[4] The word ἄφθιτον is used five other times throughout the Iliad (2.46, 5.724, 13.22, 14.238, 18.370), each time describing an immortal object, specifically Agamemnon's sceptre, the wheel of Hebe's chariot, the house of Poseidon, Zeus's throne, and the house of Hephaistos, respectively.Lattimore translates the word to mean 'immortal forever' or 'imperishable forever.' Achilles is the only mortal to ever be referred to in this way, which highlights the immense glory that awaits him if he stays and fights at Troy. Timê Related to kleos is the concept of timê (Greek: тιμή), usually translated as "respect" or "honor". One's timê is properly determined by one's station in life, or one's accomplishments (e.g., on the battlefield). The Greeks' troubles begin when Agamemnon dishonors (Book 1.11) the priest Chryses' attempt to ransom back his captive daughter; this insult prompts Chryses to call a plague down on the Achaeans. Later, Achilles' ruinous anger with Agamemnon stems from the disrespect (1.171) he feels the Argive king has shown him despite Achilles' obvious value to the Greek army.
The Wrath of Achilles As mentioned above, the first word of the Iliad is the Greek μῆνιν (mēnin), meaning rage or wrath. In this Homer is immediately announcing a main theme throughout the epic, the wrath of Achilles. Achilles' rage and vanity, which sometimes seem almost childlike, drive the plot, from the Greeks' faltering in battle and the death of Patroclus to the slaying of Hector and the eventual fall of Troy, which is not explicitly depicted in the Iliad but is alluded to numerous times. The wrath of Achilles is first displayed in Book I in a meeting between the Greek kings and the seer Kalchas. Agamemnon had dishonored Chryses, the Trojan priest of Apollo, by taking his daughter Chryseis and refusing to return her even when offered "gifts beyond count."[3] Chryses then prayed to Apollo for help, who rained arrows upon the Greeks for nine days. At the meeting Achilles accuses Agamemnon of being "greediest for gain of all men."[4] At this Agamemnon replies: "But here is my threat to you. Even as Phoibos Apollo is taking away my Chryseis. I shall convey her back in my own ship, with my own followers; but I shall take the fair-cheeked Briseis, your prize, I myself going to your shelter, that you may learn well how much greater I am than you, and another man may shrink back from likening himself to me and contending against me."[5] After this remark Achilles' anger can only be stayed by Athena and he vows to never take orders from Agamemnon again. Later, Achilles cries to his mother Thetis, who convinces Zeus on Olympus to favor the Trojans until Agamemnon restores Achilles' rights. This dooms the possibility of Greek victory in the near future, and the Trojans under Hector almost push the Greeks back into the sea in Book XII, causing Agamemnon to contemplate a defeated return to Greece. "The Wrath of Achilles" turns the tide of the war again when his closest friend and possible lover Patrocles is killed in battle by Hector while wearing Achilles' armor. When Nestor informs him, Achilles mourns grievously, tearing out his hair and dirtying his face. During his mourning, his mother Thetis again comes to comfort him. Achilles tells her: So it was here that the lord of men Agamemnon angered me. Still, we will let all this be a thing of the past, and for all our sorrow beat down by force the anger deeply within us. Now I shall go, to overtake that killer of a dear life, Hektor; then I will accept my own death, at whatever time Zeus wishes to bring it about, and the other immortals.[6] In his desire for vengeance Achilles is even willing to accept the prospect of his own death as a reasonable price to avenge his lost friend. The rage of Achilles over the death of Patrocles persuaded him to enter battle again, dooming both Hector and Troy. After killing and wounding numerous Trojans, Achilles finds Hector on the battlefield in Book XXII and chases him around the walls of Troy three times before slaying him. Achilles, in his final show of rage, then drags the body on the back of his chariot back to the Greek camp where he mourns for Patroclus. Achilles later returns the body of Hector to the Trojan king Priam when he secretly infiltrates the Greek and begs Achilles for the body of his son.
Fate Fate is shown to be a driving force behind many of the events of the Iliad. It is obeyed by both gods and men once it is set, and neither seems able (or willing) to change it. The forming of Fate is unknown, but it is told by The Fates and seers such as Calchas, and mentioned by gods and men throughout the epic. It was considered heroic to accept one's fate honorably and cowardly to attempt to avoid it.[5] However, fate does not predetermine all human action. Instead, it primarily refers to the outcome or end, such as a man's life or a city such as Troy.[6] For instance, before killing him, Hector calls Patroclus a fool for trying to conquer him in battle. Patroclus retorts: No, deadly destiny, with the son of Leto, has killed me, and of men it was Euphorbos; you are only my third slayer. And put away in your heart this other thing that I tell you. You yourself are not one who shall live long, but now already death and powerful destiny are standing beside you, to go down under the hands of Aiakos' great son, Achilleus.[7] Here Patroclus alludes to his own fate as well as Hector's to die at the hands of Achilles. Upon killing Hector, Achilles is fated to die at Troy as well. All of these outcomes are predetermined, and although each character has free will in his actions he knows that eventually his end has already been set. In some places it is ambiguous whether the gods, namely [Zeus], have the ability to alter fate. This situation first appears in Book XVI when Zeus' mortal son, Sarpedon, is about to be slain in battle by Patroclus. Zeus says: 'Ah me, that it is destined that the dearest of men, Sarpedon, must go down under the hands of Menoitios' son Patroclus.[8] When Zeus mentions his dilemma to Hera, she answers him: 'Majesty, son of Kronos, what sort of thing have you spoken? Do you wish to bring back a man who is mortal, one long since doomed by his destiny, from ill-sounding death and release him? Do it, then; but not all the rest of us gods shall approve you.[9] When faced with having to decide between losing his beloved son and abiding by fate, even Zeus, the king of the gods, decides to let the matter pass as it has been already decided. This same motif is used again when Zeus contemplates whether to spare Hector, whom he loves and respects. This time, grey-eyed Athena answers him: 'Father of the shining bold, dark misted, what is this you said? Do you wish to bring back a man who is mortal, one long since doomed by his destiny, from ill-sounding death and release him? Do it, then; but not all the rest of us gods shall approve you.[10] Again Zeus seems able to change fate but does not, choosing instead to abide by the outcomes decided long before that day's events. Fate, working in the other direction, spares Aeneas from death at the hands of Achilles. Apollo convinced Aeneas to confront Achilles during battle, although Achilles was too strong to be defeated. Seeing Aeneas outmatched and in peril, Poseidon speaks out among the immortals: But come, let us ourselves get him away from death, for fear the son of Kronos may be angered if now Achilleus kills this man. It is destined that he shall be the survivor, that the generation of Dardanos shall not die...[11] Aeneas has been fated to survive the Trojan War and because of this is saved in battle from Achilles. Although it is unclear whether the gods have the power to change fate, they repeatedly make a conscious effort to maintain fate even in opposition to their personal allegiances. This shows that although its origins are mysterious, fate plays a huge role in the outcome of events in the Iliad. It is the one power that lies even above the gods and shapes the outcome of events more than any other force in the epic. The question of fate also hints at the primeval division of the world by the three sons of Cronus, when they toppled their father. Zeus was given the air and sky, Poseidon the waters and Hades the Underworld, where the dead go. The earth per se was given jointly to all three, hence Poseidon may flood it, or convulse it with earthquakes, and Hades is free to roam it and claim those who are to die and descend to his own domain. Furthermore the Three Fates, deities of obscure and possibly far older origin than the Olympian gods, were often shown as having the only say as to the length of the lives of mortals, a matter over which the gods were unable to intervene.
The Iliad as oral tradition The Iliad and the Odyssey were considered by Greeks of the classical age, and later, as the most important works in Ancient Greek literature, and were the basis of Greek pedagogy in antiquity. As the center of the rhapsode's repertoire, their recitation was a central part of Greek religious festivals. The book would be spoken or sung all night (modern readings last around 14 hours), with audiences coming and going for parts they particularly enjoyed. Throughout much of their history, scholars of the written word treated the Iliad and Odyssey as literary poems, and Homer as a writer much like them. However, in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, scholars began to question this assumption. Milman Parry, a classical scholar, was intrigued by peculiar features of Homeric style: in particular the stock epithets and the often extensive repetition of words, phrase and even whole chunks of text. He argued that these features were artifacts of oral composition. The poet employs stock phrases because of the ease with which they could be applied to a hexameter line. Specifically, Parry observed that Homer complemented each main character's name with a specific stock epithet such that the two-word unit filled half a line. Therefore, he would only ever have to compose afresh half a line – the other half could be automatically completed with a formulaic phrase like “resourceful Odysseus.”[12] Taking this theory, Parry travelled in Yugoslavia, studying the local oral poetry. In his research he observed oral poets employing stock phrases and repetition to assist with the challenge of composing a poem orally and improvisationally. Parry's line of inquiry opened up a wider study of oral modes of thought and communication and their evolution under the impact of writing and print by Eric Havelock, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong and others. In fact, Parry's student Albert Lord, in his landmark work The Singer of Tales, detects similarities between the tragic story of Patroclus and the death of Enkidu in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. In the book, Lord refutes the idea that the Patroclus story-line upsets the "established" Homeric pattern of "wrath, bride-stealing, and rescue"[13] and says that the structure of the Iliad is dictated by "a careful analysis of the repetition of thematic patterns."[14] It should be noted, however, that the use of repetition and stock phrases has not necessarily been interpreted as a restriction on Homer's originality and capacity to rework the story as he saw fit. Professor James Armstrong, in his paper The Arming Motif in the Iliad, argues that even formulaic sections of Homer's text contain enriched meaning through illustrative word choice. He points to what he refers to as the “arming motif;” characters such as Paris, Agamemnon, Patroclus, and Achilles are all described while being armed in a formulaic, long-winded fashion. Armstrong writes that this is needed to “heighten the importance of…an impressive moment” while the repetition “creates an atmosphere of smoothness.” Yet each time, he modifies elements of the passages – for example, when describing Patroclus[15], he changes from a positive to a negative turn of phrase, which Armstrong explains as demonstrating that Patroclus is not Achilles, foreshadowing Patroclus’ death.[16] One of the effects that oral tradition has had on the Iliad is that the poem sometimes has inconsistency. For example, Aphrodite is described as “laughter-loving” even when she is in pain from the wound given to her by Diomedes (5.375). Oral tradition has also been a reason attributed for the Iliad's break from the view of the gods the Greeks in Homer's time actually had. In the Iliad, Mycenaean elements have become mixed up with Dark Age elements. For example, the most powerful Olympic gods have been compared to the Dark Ages’ hereditary basilees nobles who ruled over lesser social ranks, paralleling lesser gods like Scamander[17]. The relationship of Achilles and Patroclus The precise nature of the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus has been the subject of some dispute in both the classical period and modern times. In the Iliad, it is clear that the two heroes have a deep and extremely meaningful friendship, but the evidence of a romantic or sexual element is equivocal. Commentators from the classical period to today have tended to interpret the relationship through the lens of their own cultures. Thus, in fifth-century Athens the relationship was commonly interpreted as pederastic, since pederasty was an accepted part of Athenian society. Present day readers are more likely to interpret the two heroes either as non-sexual war buddies or as a similarly-aged homosexual couple.
Warfare in the Iliad Even though Mycene was a maritime power that managed to launch over a thousand ships and Troy at the very least had built the fleet with which Paris took Helen,[18] no sea-battle takes place throughout the conflict and Phereclus, the shipbuilder of Troy, fights on foot.[19] The heroes of the Iliad are dressed in elaborate and well described armor. They ride to the battle field on a chariot, throw a spear to the enemy formation and then dismount, use their other spear and engage in personal combat. Telamonian Ajax's carried a large tower-shaped shield (σάκος) that was used not only to cover him but also his brother: Ninth came Teucer, stretching his curved bow. He stood beneath the shield of Ajax, son of Telamon. As Ajax cautiously pulled his shield aside, Teucer would peer out quickly, shoot off an arrow, hit someone in the crowd, dropping that soldier right where he stood, ending his life—then he'd duck back, crouching down by Ajax, like a child beside its mother. Ajax would then conceal him with his shining shield. (Iliad 8.267–272, translated by Ian Johnston) Ajax's shield was heavy and difficult to carry. It was thus more suited for defence than offence. His cousin Achilles on the other hand had a large round shield that he used along with his famous spear with great success against the Trojans. Round or eight-sided was the shield of the simple soldier. Unlike the heroes they rarely had a breast-plate and relied exclusively on the shield for defence. They would form very dense formations: Just as a man constructs a wall for some high house, using well-fitted stones to keep out forceful winds, that's how close their helmets and bossed shields lined up, shield pressing against shield, helmet against helmet man against man. On the bright ridges of the helmets, horsehair plumes touched when warriors moved their heads. That's how close they were to one another. (Iliad 16.213–7, translated by Ian Johnston) Once Homer actually calls the formation phalanx though the true phalanx formation appears in the 7th century BC.[20] Was this the way that the true Trojan War was fought? Most scholars do not believe so.[21] The chariot was the main weapon in battles of the time, like the Battle of Kadesh. There is evidence from the Dendra armor and paintings at the palace of Pylos that the Mycenaeans used two-man chariots, with the principal rider armed with a long spear, unlike the Hittite three-man chariots whose riders were armed with shorter spears or the two-man chariots armed with arrows used by Egyptians and Syrians. Homer is aware of the use of chariots as a main weapon. Nestor places his charioteers in front of the rest of his troop and tells them: In your eagerness to engage the Trojans, don't any of you charge ahead of others, trusting in your strength and horsemanship. And don't lag behind. That will hurt our charge. Any man whose chariot confronts an enemy's should thrust with his spear at him from there. That's the most effective tactic, the way men wiped out city strongholds long ago— their chests full of that style and spirit. (Iliad 4.301–309, translated by Ian Johnston) Mythological Characters in the Iliad Although gods, goddesses, and demi-gods play a large role in the plot of the Iliad, scholars note that the portrayal of gods by Homer represents a break from the ways in which Greeks actually observed their religion. The gods of the Iliad were crafted to suit the author's needs in telling his story instead of to give an ideal representation of how the Greeks viewed their mythological figures. Herodotus, the classical historian, even went so far as to say that Homer and his contemporary, Hesiod, first named and described the characteristics and appearances of the gods.[22] In her book, Greek Gods: Human Lives, scholar Mary Lefkowitz discusses the relevance of the gods' actions in the Iliad and attempts to answer the question of whether their actions are applicable for their own sakes or if they are merely a metaphorical representation of human characteristics. Many classic authors, such as Thucydides and Plato, were only interested in the Homeric characters of gods as "a way of talking about human life rather than a description or a truth."[23] She argues that, if one looks at the Greek gods as religious elements rather than metaphors, their existence is what allowed Greeks to be so intellectually open. Without any established dogma or single holy book, Greeks could design gods that fit any description of religion.[24] The Iliad in subsequent arts and literature Subjects from the Trojan War were a favourite among ancient Greek dramatists. Aeschylus' trilogy, the Oresteia, comprising Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides, follows the story of Agamemnon after his return from the war. William Shakespeare used the plot of the Iliad as a source material for his play Troilus and Cressida, but focused the love story of Troilus, a Trojan prince and a son of Priam, and a Trojan woman Cressida. The play, often considered to be a comedy, reverses traditional views on events of the Trojan War and depicts Achilles as a coward, Ajax as a dull, unthinking mercenary, etc. The 1954 Broadway musical The Golden Apple by librettist John Treville Latouche and composer Jerome Moross was freely adapted from the Iliad and the Odyssey, re-setting the action to America's Washington state in the years after the Spanish-American War, with events inspired by the Iliad in Act One and events inspired by the Odyssey in Act Two. Christa Wolf's 1983 novel Kassandra is a critical engagement with the stuff of the Iliad. Wolf's narrator is Cassandra, whose thoughts we hear at the moment just before her murder by Clytemnestra in Sparta. Wolf's narrator presents a feminist's view of the war, and of war in general. Cassandra's story is accompanied by four essays which Wolf delivered as the Frankfurter Poetik-Vorlesungen. The essays present Wolf's concerns as a writer and rewriter of this canonical story and show the genesis of the novel through Wolf's own readings and in a trip she took to Greece. A number of comic series have re-told the legend of the Trojan War. The most inclusive may be Age of Bronze, a comprehensive retelling by writer/artist Eric Shanower that incorporates a broad spectrum of literary traditions and archaeological findings. Started in 1999, it is projected to number seven volumes. The Washington D.C. based painter, David Richardson, began a series of paintings in 2002 based on the Iliad and titled The Trojan War Series. Each painting in the series is intended to be a monument to a character in the Iliad and bears a name taken from the poem. As of October 2007, Richardson had completed over eighty paintings in the series and was still not finished with the body of work. Power metal band Blind Guardian composed a 14 minute song about the Iliad, "And Then There Was Silence", appearing on the 2002 album A Night at the Opera. Power metal band Manowar composed a 28 minute medley "Achilles, Agony and Ecstasy in Eight Parts" in their 1992 album, The Triumph of Steel. An epic science fiction adaptation/tribute by acclaimed author Dan Simmons titled Ilium was released in 2003. The novel received a Locus Award for best science fiction novel of 2003. A loose film adaptation of the Iliad, Troy, was released in 2004, starring Brad Pitt as Achilles, Orlando Bloom as Paris, Eric Bana as Hector, Sean Bean as Odysseus and Brian Cox as Agamemnon. It was directed by German-born Wolfgang Petersen. The movie only loosely resembles the Homeric version, with the supernatural elements of the story were deliberately expunged, except for one scene that includes Achilles' sea nymph mother, Thetis (although her supernatural nature is never specifically stated, and she is aged as though human). Though the film received mixed reviews, it was a commercial success, particularly in international sales. It grossed $133 million in the United States and $497 million worldwide, placing it in the 50 top-grossing movies of all time. S.M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time series contains numerous characters who are clearly the "original versions" of those appearing in the Iliad; the twentieth-century characters are quite aware of this and make rather frequent reference to it. One, for example, comments that "a big horse ought to be present at the fall of Troy", and another uses the glory that the poem would have brought its protagonists to turn one of them against his master. Translations into English The Iliad has been translated into English for centuries. George Chapman's 16th century translation was praised by John Keats in his sonnet, On First Looking into Chapman's Homer. Alexander Pope's translation into rhymed pentameter was published in 1715. William Cowper's 1791 version in forceful Miltonic blank verse is highly regarded. In his lectures On Translating Homer Matthew Arnold commented on the problems of translating the Iliad and on the major translations available in 1861. In 1870 the American poet William Cullen Bryant published a "simple, faithful" (Van Wyck Brooks) version in blank verse. There are several twentieth century English translations. Richmond Lattimore's version attempts to reproduce, line for line, the rhythm and phrasing of the original poem. Robert Fitzgerald has striven to situate the Iliad in the musical forms of English poetry. Robert Fagles and Stanley Lombardo both follow the Greek closely but are bolder in adding dramatic significance to conventional and formulaic Homeric language. Lombardo has chosen an American idiom that is much more colloquial than the other translations. Partial list of English translations This is a partial list of translations into English of Homer's Iliad. For a more complete list, see English translations of Homer. George Chapman, 1598 and 1615 - verse John Ogilby, 1660 Thomas Hobbes, 1676 - verse John Ozell, William Broome and William Oldisworth, 1712 Alexander Pope, 1713 - verse: full text James Macpherson, 1773 William Cowper, 1791: full text Lord Derby, 1864 - verse: full text William Cullen Bryant, 1870 Walter Leaf, Andrew Lang and Ernest Myers, 1873 - prose: full text Samuel Butler, 1898 - prose: full text A.T. Murray, 1924 Alexander Falconer, 1933 Sir William Marris, 1934 - verse W.H.D. Rouse, 1938 - prose E.V. Rieu, 1950 - prose Alston Chase and William G. Perry, 1950 - prose Richmond Lattimore, 1951 - verse Ennis Rees, 1963 - verse Robert Fitzgerald, 1974 Martin Hammond, 1987 Robert Fagles, 1990 Stanley Lombardo, 1997 Ian Johnston, 2002 - verse: full text
Notes
  1. Iliad IX 410-416
  2. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
  3. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.13.
  4. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.122.
  5. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 1.181-7.
  6. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 18.111-116.
  7. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.849-54.
  8. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.433-4.
  9. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 16.440-3.
  10. Homer.The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 22.178-81.
  11. Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. 20.300-4.
  12. Porter, John. “The Iliad as Oral Formulaic Poetry.” The Iliad as Oral Formulaic Poetry. 8 May 2006. University of Saskatchewan. Accessed 26 November 2007.
  13. Lord, Albert. The Singer of Tales Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. p. 190
  14. Lord, Albert. The Singer of Tales Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. p. 195
  15. Iliad XVI 130-154
  16. Armstrong, James I. The Arming Motif in the Iliad. The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 79, No. 4. (1958), pp. 337-354.
  17. Toohey, Peter. Reading Epic: An Introduction to the Ancient Narrative. New Fetter Lane, London: Routledge, 1992.
  18. Iliad 3.45–50
  19. Iliad 5.59–65
  20. Iliad 6.6
  21. Tomas Cahill, Sailing the Wine Dark Sea, Why the Greeks Matter, New York 2003
  22. Homer's Iliad: Classical Technology Center. http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/netshots/homer.htm
  23. Lefkowitz, Mary. Greek Gods: Human Lives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003
  24. Oliver Taplin. "Bring Back the Gods." The New York Times. 14 December 2003.

pínglún (2)

hepingdao xièdào (2008-03-30 16:27:09):

  《 zhōng miáo xiě liǎo zhàn zhēng jié shù qián 51 tiān de shì lián jūn tǒng shuài 'ā mén nóng shì shì dāng zhòng lián jūn zhù jiāng 'ā liú bìng duó zǒu liǎo de ā liú fèn jiāo jiā tuì chū zhàn dǒu lián jūn yīn 'ér jié jié bài tuìzhí zhì 'ā liú de hǎo yǒu bèi luò zhù jiāng tuō shā lián jūn miàn lín bēng kuì de jǐn guān tóuā liú cái pāo jiù yuànchóngxīn shàng zhènwǎn huí bài bìng shā tuōshǐ shī zài luò rén wéi tuō xíng lóng zhòng zàng zhōng jié shù。《 yīng xióng wéi zhōng xīnyòng liàng piān miáo xiě yīng xióng men de zhàn dǒu sòng yǒng gǎnchōng mǎn yīng xióng zhù
  
  《 shǐ shīshì zuì zǎo de shǐ shībāo kuò ào sàiliǎng fēnxiāng chuán shì yóu máng shī rén suǒ zuòshí shàng chǎn shēng mín jiān kǒu tóu wén xué
  
   ( ΙΛΙΑΣ, Ilias,Iliad, yòu 'áng 》, jīn 》。) shì máng shī rén (Homer,800BC-600BC) de shì shī shǐ shīshì zhòng yào de wén xué zuò pǐn shì zhěng fāng de jīng diǎn zhī 。《 gòng 'èr shí juàn hòu rén suǒ fēn), 15,693( ±) xíng juàn de cháng cóng 429 dào 999 xíng děngshǐ shī suī rán cái luò zhàn zhēng de chuán shuōquè cóng lián jūn wéi gōng luò jiǔ nián líng shí yuè hòu de yīcháng nèi hòng xiě bìng qiě xiě dào tuō 'ěr de zàng jiù jié shù liǎoyǐn zhè chǎng zhàn zhēng de jīn píng guǒ de shén huàzài miáo xiě hǎi lún shí yòu suǒ luò de xiàn luò jiàn ào xiū 》 (《 ào sài》) zhōng 'ào xiū duì wǎng shì de huí 。《 de tóu shìā liú de fèn shì de zhù ”。 lián jūn dàjiàng 'ā liú xìng liè huǒ yòu liǎng fèn de biǎo xiànshǐ shī xiě dàozhàn zhēng jīng liǎo jiǔ nián líng shí yuèhái shì shèng nán zhè shí lián jūn yīn wēn shēng nèi hòngwēn shì lián jūn tǒng shuài 'ā mén nóng jué guī hái suǒ yǐn deyīn wéi zhè shì shén 'ā luó de 'érā luó de qǐng qiú 'ā mén nóng guī hái de 'ér shòu dào juéjiù qiú 'ā luó chéng lián jūnzhè chǎng wēn màn yán xià jiù huì shǐ lián jūn shōu shíyīn 'ā liú yào qiú 'ā mén nóng zhè guī háimiǎn wēn màn yánā mén nóng zài hěn qíng yuàn de qíng kuàng xià guī hái liǎo zhè què gōng zhèng duó zǒu liǎo yuán lái fēn pèijǐ 'ā liú de lìng zuò wéi sǔn shī de chángā liú zài fèn zhī xià jué cān zhànzài lián jūn zhōngzhǐ yòu 'ā liú cái shì tuō 'ěr de duì shǒuyīn jué cān zhàn jiù rán yǐn lián jūn de shī lián jūn zài qíng kuàng xià liǎo luò jūn duì de fǎn gōngzhǐ hǎo tuì 'ér shǒu hǎi bīn de zhàn chuánzài gòu zhù liǎo fáng shǒu xìng de lěiā mén nóng zhè shí hòu huǐ duì 'ā liú gōngzhǐ hǎo pài 'ào xiū lìng wèi jiànglǐng xiàng qiú shì fèn wèi xiāojiān jué dāyìng huí dào zhàn zhēngā liú zhǐ shì zài luò jūn duì jīng lián jūn de lěi zòng huǒ fén shāo men de zhàn chuán de shí fēn wēi de qíng kuàng xiàcái de kuī jiá zhàn jiè gěi de hǎo yǒu luò luó ràng luò luó qián yìng luò luó suī rán tuì liǎo luò jūn duì de gōng dàn zhōng wéi tuō 'ěr suǒ shāyīn 'ā liú jiè gěi de kuī jiá diū diào liǎozhè kuī jiá yuán shì de qīn shén qǐng jiàng shén zhì zào dezhàn yǒu zhī kuī jiá bèi diū yǐn 'ā liú de 'èr fèn ér shǐ 'ā mén nóng jiěbìng qiě zài qīn qǐng jiàng shén gěi zhì zào liǎo xīn kuī jiá zhī hòuchóngxīn huí dào zhàn zhēngzuì hòu shā liǎo tuō 'ěr liǎo jué dìng xìng de shèng
  
  《 shù liǎo luò zhàn zhēng shí nián shì zuì hòu niánzhōng xīng de huó dòng bié shìā (Achilles, chuán shuō zhōng yǒng shì ) de liàng”。 shǐ shī 'ā 'ā mén nóng (Agamemnon) de zhēng chǎo kāi shǐ tuō 'ěr de zàng jié shù shì de bèi jǐng zuì zuì zhōng de jié dōuméi yòu zhí jiē shù
  
   'ào sài zhǐ shì gèng hóng de shì shī chuán tǒng de fēn wài hái yòu duō tóng cháng tóng zuò zhě de shì shī zuòzhǐ guò zhǐ yòu xiē piàn duàn liú chuán xià lái
  
  《 shì shǐ shī zhōng zhí jiē miáo xiě luò zhàn zhēng de yīng xióng shǐ shī lián jūn zhù jiāng 'ā liú yīn 'ài de bèi tǒng shuài 'ā mén nóng duó zǒufèn 'ér tuì chū zhàn dǒu luò rén chéng lián jūnzài wēi guān tóuā liú de hǎo yǒu luò luó chuān shàng 'ā liú de kuī jiá shàng zhènbèi luò dàjiàng tuō 'ěr shā ā liú huǐ hèn zhòng shàng zhàn chǎngshā tuō 'ěr luò lǎo wáng zhòng jīn shú hái 'ér shī shǐ shī zài tuō 'ěr de zàng zhōng jié shù
  
  《 de zhù shì zàn měi dài yīng xióng de gāng qiáng wēi zhì yǒng gǎnōu men zài tóng zhàn dǒu zhōng suǒ jiàn de fēng gōng wěi yīng xióng zhù zhù jīng shén
  
  《 zào liǎo liè dài yīng xióng xíng xiàngzài men shēn shàng zhōng liǎo luò suǒ yào qiú de yōu liáng pǐn yòu chū liǎo rén de xìng zhēngā liú yīng yǒng shàn zhànměi shàng zhèn shǐ rén wàng fēng pīmǐ zhēn 'ài yǒu tīng dào hǎo yǒu zhèn wáng de 'è hàobēi tòng juéfèn 'ér bēn xiàng zhàn chǎng wéi yǒu chóu duì lǎo rén yòu tóng qíng zhī xīnyǔn nuò báifà cāng cāng de luò lǎo wáng guī hái tuō 'ěr shī de qǐng qiú shì yòu 'ào màn rèn xìngwèile 'ér tǒng shuài nào fāntuì chū zhàn dǒuzào chéng lián jūn de cǎn bài bào zào xiōng hěnwèile xiè fènjìng jiāng tuō 'ěr de shī shuān shàng zhàn chē rào chéng sān juàn zhī xiāng luò tǒng shuài tuō 'ěr shì gèng jiā wán měi de dài yīng xióng xíng xiàng shēn xiān shì chéng shú chí zhòng jué dān bǎo wèi jiā yuán luò de zhòng rèn zhuī qiú róng wèi qiáng zài liàng xuán shū de wēi guān tóuréng rán háo chū chéng yíng fèn yǒng shā jìng zhòng zhì 'ài 'érjué zhàn qián gào bié qīn rén de dòng rén chǎng miànchōng mǎn liǎo nóng hòu de rén qíng wèi gǎn rén de bēi zhuàng cǎi
  
  《 jié gòu yán jǐn jīng qiǎo ā liú de fèn zuò wéi quán shū de zhù xiàn rén shì jiàn huán rào zhè tiáo zhù xiàn zhǎn kāixíng chéng yán jǐn de zhěng shǐ shī shàn yòng dòng de dòng zuòhuò yòng rán jǐng guānshēng huó xiàn xiàng zuò gòu chéng yòu qíng de shì ”。 shū zhōng xiě dào 'ā liú tuì chū zhàn dǒu tuō 'ěr jūn duì chù bēn táoshǐ shī yòng liǎo zhè yàng de :“ hǎo xiàng zhǐ mán de shī gōng jìn niú qúnchī liǎo tóu 'ér xià de fēn fēn táo cuàn。” zhōng yòu míng de shēng mìng shì néng jiàn mài de , nìngkě zhàn dǒu 'ér , yào zǒu shàng guāng róng de jié , ràng xiǎn de gōng xūn chuán dào lái shìshǐ shī jié zòu qiáng liè diào 'áng yáng shì biǎo xiàn zhòng shì jiànyòu biàn kǒu tóu yín sòng。《 gāo chāo de shù shǒu cháng wéi hòu rén suǒ chēng dào
hepingdao xièdào (2008-03-31 10:12:00):

  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license
  
  Title: The Iliad of Homer
  
  Author: Homer
  
  Release Date: September 2006 [Ebook #6130]
  
  Language: English
  
  The Iliad of Homer
  
  
  Translated by Alexander Pope,
  
  with notes by the
  Rev. Theodore Alois Buckley, M.A., F.S.A.
  
  and
  
  Flaxman's Designs.
  
  1899
  
  Contents
  INTRODUCTION.
  POPE'S PREFACE TO THE ILIAD OF HOMER
  BOOK I.
  BOOK II.
  BOOK III.
  BOOK IV.
  BOOK V.
  BOOK VI.
  BOOK VII.
  BOOK VIII.
  BOOK IX.
  BOOK X.
  BOOK XI.
  BOOK XII.
  BOOK XIII.
  BOOK XIV.
  BOOK XV.
  BOOK XVI.
  BOOK XVII.
  BOOK XVIII.
  BOOK XIX.
  BOOK XX.
  BOOK XXI.
  BOOK XXII.
  BOOK XXIII.
  BOOK XXIV.
  CONCLUDING NOTE.
  
  INTRODUCTION.
  Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of scepticism. To be content with what we at present know, is, for the most part, to shut our ears against conviction; since, from the very gradual character of our education, we must continually forget, and emancipate ourselves from, knowledge previously acquired; we must set aside old notions and embrace fresh ones; and, as we learn, we must be daily unlearning something which it has cost us no small labour and anxiety to acquire.
  
  And this difficulty attaches itself more closely to an age in which progress has gained a strong ascendency over prejudice, and in which persons and things are, day by day, finding their real level, in lieu of their conventional value. The same principles which have swept away traditional abuses, and which are making rapid havoc among the revenues of sinecurists, and stripping the thin, tawdry veil from attractive superstitions, are working as actively in literature as in society. The credulity of one writer, or the partiality of another, finds as powerful a touchstone and as wholesome a chastisement in the healthy scepticism of a temperate class of antagonists, as the dreams of conservatism, or the impostures of pluralist sinecures in the Church. History and tradition, whether of ancient or comparatively recent times, are subjected to very different handling from that which the indulgence or credulity of former ages could allow. Mere statements are jealously watched, and the motives of the writer form as important an ingredient in the analysis of his history, as the facts he records. Probability is a powerful and troublesome test; and it is by this troublesome standard that a large portion of historical evidence is sifted. Consistency is no less pertinacious and exacting in its demands. In brief, to write a history, we must know more than mere facts. Human nature, viewed under an induction of extended experience, is the best help to the criticism of human history. Historical characters can only be estimated by the standard which human experience, whether actual or traditionary, has furnished. To form correct views of individuals we must regard them as forming parts of a great whole héng we must measure them by their relation to the mass of beings by whom they are surrounded, and, in contemplating the incidents in their[pg x] lives or condition which tradition has handed down to us, we must rather consider the general bearing of the whole narrative, than the respective probability of its details.
  
  It is unfortunate for us, that, of some of the greatest men, we know least, and talk most. Homer, Socrates, and Shakespere1 have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectual enlightenment of mankind than any other three writers who could be named, and yet the history of all three has given rise to a boundless ocean of discussion, which has left us little save the option of choosing which theory or theories we will follow. The personality of Shakespere is, perhaps, the only thing in which critics will allow us to believe without controversy; but upon everything else, even down to the authorship of plays, there is more or less of doubt and uncertainty. Of Socrates we know as little as the contradictions of Plato and Xenophon will allow us to know. He was one of the dramatis personae in two dramas as unlike in principles as in style. He appears as the enunciator of opinions as different in their tone as those of the writers who have handed them down. When we have read Plato or Xenophon, we think we know something of Socrates; when we have fairly read and examined both, we feel convinced that we are something worse than ignorant.
  
  It has been an easy, and a popular expedient, of late years, to deny the personal or real existence of men and things whose life and condition were too much for our belief. This system héng which has often comforted the religious sceptic, and substituted the consolations of Strauss for those of the New Testament héng has been of incalculable value to the historical theorists of the last and present centuries. To question the existence of Alexander the Great, would be a more excusable act, than to believe in that of Romulus. To deny a fact related in Herodotus, because it is inconsistent with a theory developed from an Assyrian inscription which no two scholars read in the same way, is more pardonable, than to believe in the good-natured old king whom the elegant pen of Florian has idealized héng Numa Pompilius.
  
  Scepticism has attained its culminating point with respect to Homer, and the state of our Homeric knowledge may be described as a free permission to believe any theory, provided we throw overboard[pg xi] all written tradition, concerning the author or authors of the Iliad and Odyssey. What few authorities exist on the subject, are summarily dismissed, although the arguments appear to run in a circle. "This cannot be true, because it is not true; and, that is not true, because it cannot be true." Such seems to be the style, in which testimony upon testimony, statement upon statement, is consigned to denial and oblivion.
  
  It is, however, unfortunate that the professed biographies of Homer are partly forgeries, partly freaks of ingenuity and imagination, in which truth is the requisite most wanting. Before taking a brief review of the Homeric theory in its present conditions, some notice must be taken of the treatise on the Life of Homer which has been attributed to Herodotus.
  
  According to this document, the city of Cumae in Æolia, was, at an early period, the seat of frequent immigrations from various parts of Greece. Among the immigrants was Menapolus, the son of Ithagenes. Although poor, he married, and the result of the union was a girl named Critheis. The girl was left an orphan at an early age, under the guardianship of Cleanax, of Argos. It is to the indiscretion of this maiden that we "are indebted for so much happiness." Homer was the first fruit of her juvenile frailty, and received the name of Melesigenes, from having been born near the river Meles, in Boeotia, whither Critheis had been transported in order to save her reputation.
  
  "At this time," continues our narrative, "there lived at Smyrna a man named Phemius, a teacher of literature and music, who, not being married, engaged Critheis to manage his household, and spin the flax he received as the price of his scholastic labours. So satisfactory was her performance of this task, and so modest her conduct, that he made proposals of marriage, declaring himself, as a further inducement, willing to adopt her son, who, he asserted, would become a clever man, if he were carefully brought up."
  
  They were married; careful cultivation ripened the talents which nature had bestowed, and Melesigenes soon surpassed his schoolfellows in every attainment, and, when older, rivalled his preceptor in wisdom. Phemius died, leaving him sole heir to his property, and his mother soon followed. Melesigenes carried on his adopted father's school with great success, exciting the admiration not only of the inhabitants of Smyrna, but also of the strangers whom the trade carried on there, especially in the exportation of corn, attracted to that city. Among these visitors, one Mentes, from Leucadia, the modern Santa Maura, who evinced a knowledge and intelligence rarely found in those times, persuaded Melesigenes to close his school, and accompany him on his travels. He promised not only to pay his expenses, but to furnish him with a further stipend, urging, that, "While he was yet young, it was fitting that he should see with his own eyes the countries and cities which might hereafter be the subjects of his discourses." Melesigenes consented, and set out with his patron, "examining all the curiosities of the countries they visited, and informing himself of everything by interrogating those whom he met." We may also suppose, that he[pg xii] wrote memoirs of all that he deemed worthy of preservation2 Having set sail from Tyrrhenia and Iberia, they reached Ithaca. Here Melesigenes, who had already suffered in his eyes, became much worse, and Mentes, who was about to leave for Leucadia, left him to the medical superintendence of a friend of his, named Mentor, the son of Alcinor. Under his hospitable and intelligent host, Melesigenes rapidly became acquainted with the legends respecting Ulysses, which afterwards formed the subject of the Odyssey. The inhabitants of Ithaca assert, that it was here that Melesigenes became blind, but the Colophomans make their city the seat of that misfortune. He then returned to Smyrna, where he applied himself to the study of poetry.3
  
  But poverty soon drove him to Cumae. Having passed over the Hermaean plain, he arrived at Neon Teichos, the New Wall, a colony of Cumae. Here his misfortunes and poetical talent gained him the friendship of one Tychias, an armourer. "And up to my time," continued the author, "the inhabitants showed the place where he used to sit when giving a recitation of his verses, and they greatly honoured the spot. Here also a poplar grew, which they said had sprung up ever since Melesigenes arrived".4
  
  But poverty still drove him on, and he went by way of Larissa, as being the most convenient road. Here, the Cumans say, he composed an epitaph on Gordius, king of Phrygia, which has however, and with greater probability, been attributed to Cleobulus of Lindus.5
  
  Arrived at Cumae, he frequented the converzationes6 of the old men, and delighted all by the charms of his poetry. Encouraged by this favourable reception, he declared that, if they would allow him a public maintenance, he would render their city most gloriously renowned.[pg xiii] They avowed their willingness to support him in the measure he proposed, and procured him an audience in the council. Having made the speech, with the purport of which our author has forgotten to acquaint us, he retired, and left them to debate respecting the answer to be given to his proposal.
  
  The greater part of the assembly seemed favourable to the poet's demand, but one man observed that "if they were to feed Homers, they would be encumbered with a multitude of useless people." "From this circumstance," says the writer, "Melesigenes acquired the name of Homer, for the Cumans call blind men Homers."7 With a love of economy, which shows how similar the world has always been in its treatment of literary men, the pension was denied, and the poet vented his disappointment in a wish that Cumoea might never produce a poet capable of giving it renown and glory.
  
  At Phocoea, Homer was destined to experience another literary distress. One Thestorides, who aimed at the reputation of poetical genius, kept Homer in his own house, and allowed him a pittance, on condition of the verses of the poet passing in his name. Having collected sufficient poetry to be profitable, Thestorides, like some would-be-literary publishers, neglected the man whose brains he had sucked, and left him. At his departure, Homer is said to have observed: "O Thestorides, of the many things hidden from the knowledge of man, nothing is more unintelligible than the human heart."8
  
  Homer continued his career of difficulty and distress, until some Chian merchants, struck by the similarity of the verses they heard him recite, acquainted him with the fact that Thestorides was pursuing a profitable livelihood by the recital of the very same poems. This at once determined him to set out for Chios. No vessel happened then to be setting sail thither, but he found one ready to Start for Erythrae, a town of Ionia, which faces that island, and he prevailed upon the seamen to allow him to accompany them. Having embarked, he invoked a favourable wind, and prayed that he might be able to expose the imposture of Thestorides, who, by his breach of hospitality, had drawn down the wrath of Jove the Hospitable.
  
  At Erythrae, Homer fortunately met with a person who had known him in Phocoea, by whose assistance he at length, after some difficulty, reached the little hamlet of Pithys. Here he met with an adventure, which we will continue in the words of our author. "Having set out from Pithys, Homer went on, attracted by the cries of some goats that were pasturing. The dogs barked on his approach, and he cried out. Glaucus (for that was the name of the goat-herd) heard his voice, ran up quickly, called off his dogs, and drove them away from Homer. For or some time he stood wondering how a blind man should have[pg xiv] reached such a place alone, and what could be his design in coming. He then went up to him, and inquired who he was, and how he had come to desolate places and untrodden spots, and of what he stood in need. Homer, by recounting to him the whole history of his misfortunes, moved him with compassion; and he took him, and led him to his cot, and having lit a fire, bade him sup.9
  
  "The dogs, instead of eating, kept barking at the stranger, according to their usual habit. Whereupon Homer addressed Glaucus thus: O Glaucus, my friend, prythee attend to my behest. First give the dogs their supper at the doors of the hut: for so it is better, since, whilst they watch, nor thief nor wild beast will approach the fold.
  
  Glaucus was pleased with the advice, and marvelled at its author. Having finished supper, they banqueted10 afresh on conversation, Homer narrating his wanderings, and telling of the cities he had visited.
  
  At length they retired to rest; but on the following morning, Glaucus resolved to go to his master, and acquaint him with his meeting with Homer. Having left the goats in charge of a fellow-servant, he left Homer at home, promising to return quickly. Having arrived at Bolissus, a place near the farm, and finding his mate, he told him the whole story respecting Homer and his journey. He paid little attention to what he said, and blamed Glaucus for his stupidity in taking in and feeding maimed and enfeebled persons. However, he bade him bring the stranger to him.
  
  Glaucus told Homer what had taken place, and bade him follow him, assuring him that good fortune would be the result. Conversation soon showed that the stranger was a man of much cleverness and general knowledge, and the Chian persuaded him to remain, and to undertake the charge of his children.11
  
  Besides the satisfaction of driving the impostor Thestorides from the island, Homer enjoyed considerable success as a teacher. In the town of Chios he established a school where he taught the precepts of poetry. "To this day," says Chandler,12 "the most curious remain is that which has been named, without reason, the School of Homer. It is on the coast, at some distance from the city, northward, and appears to have been an open temple of Cybele, formed on the top of a rock. The shape is oval, and in the centre is the image of the goddess, the[pg xv] head and an arm wanting. She is represented, as usual, sitting. The chair has a lion carved on each side, and on the back. The area is bounded by a low rim, or seat, and about five yards over. The whole is hewn out of the mountain, is rude, indistinct, and probably of the most remote antiquity."
  
  So successful was this school, that Homer realised a considerable fortune. He married, and had two daughters, one of whom died single, the other married a Chian.
  
  The following passage betrays the same tendency to connect the personages of the poems with the history of the poet, which has already been mentioned: héng
  
  "In his poetical compositions Homer displays great gratitude towards Mentor of Ithaca, in the Odyssey, whose name he has _insert_ed in his poem as the companion of Ulysses,13 in return for the care taken of him when afflicted with blindness. He also testifies his gratitude to Phemius, who had given him both sustenance and instruction."
  
  His celebrity continued to increase, and many persons advised him to visit Greece, whither his reputation had now extended. Having, it is said, made some additions to his poems calculated to please the vanity of the Athenians, of whose city he had hitherto made no mention,14 he sent out for Samos. Here being recognized by a Samian, who had met with him in Chios, he was handsomely received, and invited to join in celebrating the Apaturian festival. He recited some verses, which gave great satisfaction, and by singing the Eiresione at the New Moon festivals, he earned a subsistence, visiting the houses of the rich, with whose children he was very popular.
  
  In the spring he sailed for Athens, and arrived at the island of Ios, now Ino, where he fell extremely ill, and died. It is said that his death arose from vexation, at not having been able to unravel an enigma proposed by some fishermen's children.15
  
  Such is, in brief, the substance of the earliest life of Homer we possess, and so broad are the evidences of its historical worthlessness, that it is scarcely necessary to point them out in detail. Let us now consider some of the opinions to which a persevering, patient, and learned héng but by no means consistent héng series of investigations has led. In doing so, I profess to bring forward statements, not to vouch for their reasonableness or probability.
  
  "Homer appeared. The history of this poet and his works is lost in doubtful obscurity, as is the history of many of the first minds who have done honour to humanity, because they rose amidst darkness. The majestic stream of his song, blessing and fertilizing, flows like the Nile, through many lands and nations; and, like the sources of the Nile, its fountains will ever remain concealed."
  
  [pg xvi]
  Such are the words in which one of the most judicious German critics has eloquently described the uncertainty in which the whole of the Homeric question is involved. With no less truth and feeling he proceeds: héng
  
  "It seems here of chief importance to expect no more than the nature of things makes possible. If the period of tradition in history is the region of twilight, we should not expect in it perfect light. The creations of genius always seem like miracles, because they are, for the most part, created far out of the reach of observation. If we were in possession of all the historical testimonies, we never could wholly explain the origin of the Iliad and the Odyssey; for their origin, in all essential points, must have remained the secret of the poet." 16
  
  From this criticism, which shows as much insight into the depths of human nature as into the minute wire-drawings of scholastic investigation, let us pass on to the main question at issue. Was Homer an individual?17 or were the Iliad and Odyssey the result of an ingenious arrangement of fragments by earlier poets?
  
  Well has Landor remarked: "Some tell us there were twenty Homers; some deny that there was ever one. It were idle and foolish to shake the contents of a vase, in order to let them settle at last. We are perpetually labouring to destroy our delights, our composure, our devotion to superior power. Of all the animals on earth we least know what is good for us. My opinion is, that what is best for us is our admiration of good. No man living venerates Homer more than I do." 18
  
  But, greatly as we admire the generous enthusiasm which rests contented with the poetry on which its best impulses had been nurtured and fostered, without seeking to destroy the vividness of first impressions by minute analysis héng our editorial office compels us to give some attention to the doubts and difficulties with which the Homeric question is beset, and to entreat our reader, for a brief period, to prefer his judgment to his imagination, and to condescend to dry details.
  
  Before, however, entering into particulars respecting the question of this unity of the Homeric poems, (at least of the Iliad,) I must express my sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the following remarks: héng
  
  "We cannot but think the universal admiration of its unity by the better, the poetic age of Greece, almost conclusive testimony to its original composition. It was not till the age of the grammarians that its primitive integrity was called in question; nor is it injustice to assert, that the minute and analytical spirit of a grammarian is not the best qualification for the profound feeling, the comprehensive conception of an harmonious whole. The most exquisite anatomist may be no judge of the symmetry of the human frame: and we would take the opinion of Chantrey or Westmacott on the proportions and general beauty of a form, rather than that of Mr. Brodie or Sir Astley Cooper.
  
  [pg xvii]
  "There is some truth, though some malicious exaggeration, in the lines of Pope. héng
  
  "'The critic eye héng that microscope of wit
  Sees hairs and pores, examines bit by bit,
  How parts relate to parts, or they to whole
  The body's harmony, the beaming soul,
  Are things which Kuster, Burmann, Wasse, shall see,
  When man's whole frame is obvious to a flea.'"19
  Long was the time which elapsed before any one dreamt of questioning the unity of the authorship of the Homeric poems. The grave and cautious Thucydides quoted without hesitation the Hymn to Apollo,20 the authenticity of which has been already disclaimed by modern critics. Longinus, in an oft quoted passage, merely expressed an opinion touching the comparative inferiority of the Odyssey to the Iliad,21 and, among a mass of ancient authors, whose very names22 it would be tedious to detail, no suspicion of the personal non-existence of Homer ever arose. So far, the voice of antiquity seems to be in favour of our early ideas on the subject; let us now see what are the discoveries to which more modern investigations lay claim.
  
  At the end of the seventeenth century, doubts had begun to awaken on the subject, and we find Bentley remarking that "Homer wrote a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, to be sung by himself, for small comings 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 Peisistratus' time, about five hundred years after."23
  
  Two French writers héng Hedelin and Perrault héng avowed a similar scepticism on the subject; but it is in the "Scienza Nuova" of Battista Vico, that we first meet with the germ of the theory, subsequently defended by Wolf with so much learning and acuteness. Indeed, it is with the Wolfian theory that we have chiefly to deal, and with the following bold hypothesis, which we will detail in the words of Grote24 héng
  
  "Half a century ago, the acute and valuable Prolegomena of F. A. Wolf, turning to account the Venetian Scholia, which had then been[pg xviii] recently published, first opened philosophical discussion as to the history of the Homeric text. A considerable part of that dissertation (though by no means the whole) is employed in vindicating the position, previously announced by Bentley, amongst others, that the separate constituent portions of the Iliad and Odyssey had not been cemented together into any compact body and unchangeable order, until the days of Peisistratus, in the sixth century before Christ. As a step towards that conclusion, Wolf maintained that no written copies of either poem could be shown to have existed during the earlier times, to which their composition is referred; and that without writing, neither the perfect symmetry of so complicated a work could have been originally conceived by any poet, nor, if realized by him, transmitted with assurance to posterity. The absence of easy and convenient writing, such as must be indispensably supposed for long manuscripts, among the early Greeks, was thus one of the points in Wolf's case against the primitive integrity of the Iliad and Odyssey. By Nitzsch, and other leading opponents of Wolf, the connection of the one with the other seems to have been accepted as he originally put it; and it has been considered incumbent on those who defended the ancient aggregate character of the Iliad and Odyssey, to maintain that they were written poems from the beginning.
  
  "To me it appears, that the architectonic functions ascribed by Wolf to Peisistratus and his associates, in reference to the Homeric poems, are nowise admissible. But much would undoubtedly be gained towards that view of the question, if it could be shown, that, in order to controvert it, we were driven to the necessity of admitting long written poems, in the ninth century before the Christian aera. Few things, in my opinion, can be more improbable; and Mr. Payne Knight, opposed as he is to the Wolfian hypothesis, admits this no less than Wolf himself. The traces of writing in Greece, even in the seventh century before the Christian aera, are exceedingly trifling. We have no remaining inscription earlier than the fortieth Olympiad, and the early inscriptions are rude and unskilfully executed; nor can we even assure ourselves whether Archilochus, Simonides of Amorgus, Kallinus, Tyrtaeus, Xanthus, and the other early elegiac and lyric poets, committed their compositions to writing, or at what time the practice of doing so became familiar. The first positive ground which authorizes us to presume the existence of a manuscript of Homer, is in the famous ordinance of Solon, with regard to the rhapsodies at the Panathenaea: but for what length of time previously manuscripts had existed, we are unable to say.
  
  "Those who maintain the Homeric poems to have been written from the beginning, rest their case, not upon positive proofs, nor yet upon the existing habits of society with regard to poetry héng for they admit generally that the Iliad and Odyssey were not read, but recited and heard, héng but upon the supposed necessity that there must have been manuscripts to ensure the preservation of the poems héng the unassisted memory of reciters being neither sufficient nor trustworthy. But here we only escape a smaller difficulty by running into a greater; for the existence of trained bards, gifted with extraordinary memory,[pg xix] 25 is far less astonishing than that of long manuscripts, in an age essentially non-reading and non-writing, and when even suitable instruments and materials for the process are not obvious. Moreover, there is a strong positive reason for believing that the bard was under no necessity of refreshing his memory by consulting a manuscript; for if such had been the fact, blindness would have been a disqualification for the profession, which we know that it was not, as well from the example of Demodokus, in the Odyssey, as from that of the blind bard of Chios, in the Hymn to the Delian Apollo, whom Thucydides, as well as the general tenor of Grecian legend, identifies with Homer himself. The author of that hymn, be he who he may, could never have described a blind man as attaining the utmost perfection in his art, if he had been conscious that the memory of the bard was only maintained by constant reference to the manuscript in his chest."
  
  The loss of the digamma, that crux of critics, that quicksand upon which even the acumen of Bentley was shipwrecked, seems to prove beyond a doubt, that the pronunciation of the Greek language had undergone a considerable change. Now it is certainly difficult to suppose that the Homeric poems could have suffered by this change, had written copies been preserved. If Chaucer's poetry, for instance, had not been written, it could only have come down to us in a softened form, more like the effeminate version of Dryden, than the rough, quaint, noble original.
  
  "At what period," continues Grote, "these poems, or indeed any other Greek poems, first began to be written, must be matter of conjecture, though there is ground for assurance that it was before the time of Solon. If, in the absence of evidence, we may venture upon[pg xx] naming any more determinate period, the question a once suggests itself, What were the purposes which, in that state of society, a manuscript at its first commencement must have been intended to answer? For whom was a written Iliad necessary? Not for the rhapsodes; for with them it was not only planted in the memory, but also interwoven with the feelings, and conceived in conjunction with all those flexions and intonations of voice, pauses, and other oral artifices which were required for emphatic delivery, and which the naked manuscript could never reproduce. Not for the general public héng they were accustomed to receive it with its rhapsodic delivery, and with its accompaniments of a solemn and crowded festival. The only persons for whom the written Iliad would be suitable would be a _select_ few; studious and curious men; a class of readers capable of analyzing the complicated emotions which they had experienced as hearers in the crowd, and who would, on perusing the written words, realize in their imaginations a sensible portion of the impression communicated by the reciter. Incredible as the statement may seem in an age like the present, there is in all early societies, and there was in early Greece, a time when no such reading class existed. If we could discover at what time such a class first began to be formed, we should be able to make a guess at the time when the old epic poems were first committed to writing. Now the period which may with the greatest probability be fixed upon as having first witnessed the formation even of the narrowest reading class in Greece, is the middle of the seventh century before the Christian aera (B.C. 660 to B.C. 630), the age of Terpander, Kallinus, Archilochus, Simonides of Amorgus, &c. I ground this supposition on the change then operated in the character and tendencies of Grecian poetry and music héng the elegiac and the iambic measures having been introduced as rivals to the primitive hexameter, and poetical compositions having been transferred from the epical past to the affairs of present and real life. Such a change was important at a time when poetry was the only known mode of publication (to use a modern phrase not altogether suitable, yet the nearest approaching to the sense). It argued a new way of looking at the old epical treasures of the people as well as a thirst for new poetical effect; and the men who stood forward in it, may well be considered as desirous to study, and competent to criticize, from their own individual point of view, the written words of the Homeric rhapsodies, just as we are told that Kallinus both noticed and eulogized the Thebais as the production of Homer. There seems, therefore, ground for conjecturing that (for the use of this newly-formed and important, but very narrow class), manuscripts of the Homeric poems and other old epics, héng the Thebais and the Cypria, as well as the Iliad and the Odyssey, héng began to be compiled towards the middle of the seventh century (B.C. 1); and the opening of Egypt to Grecian commerce, which took place about the same period, would furnish increased facilities for obtaining the requisite papyrus to write upon. A reading class, when once formed, would doubtless slowly increase, and the number of manuscripts along with it; so that before the time of Solon, fifty years afterwards, both readers and manuscripts, though still comparatively few, might have attained a[pg xxi] certain recognized authority, and formed a tribunal of reference against the carelessness of individual rhapsodes."26
  
  But even Peisistratus has not been suffered to remain in possession of the credit, and we cannot help feeling the force of the following observations héng
  
  "There are several incidental circumstances which, in our opinion, throw some suspicion over the whole history of the Peisistratid compilation, at least over the theory, that the Iliad was cast into its present stately and harmonious form by the directions of the Athenian ruler. If the great poets, who flourished at the bright period of Grecian song, of which, alas! we have inherited little more than the fame, and the faint echo, if Stesichorus, Anacreon, and Simonides were employed in the noble task of compiling the Iliad and Odyssey, so much must have been done to arrange, to connect, to harmonize, that it is almost incredible, that stronger marks of Athenian manufacture should not remain. Whatever occasional anomalies may be detected, anomalies which no doubt arise out of our own ignorance of the language of the Homeric age, however the irregular use of the digamma may have perplexed our Bentleys, to whom the name of Helen is said to have caused as much disquiet and distress as the fair one herself among the heroes of her age, however Mr. Knight may have failed in reducing the Homeric language to its primitive form; however, finally, the Attic dialect may not have assumed all its more marked and distinguishing characteristics héng still it is difficult to suppose that the language, particularly in the joinings and transitions, and connecting parts, should not more clearly betray the incongruity between the more ancient and modern forms of expression. It is not quite in character with such a period to imitate an antique style, in order to piece out an imperfect poem in the character of the original, as Sir Walter Scott has done in his continuation of Sir Tristram.
  
  "If, however, not even such faint and indistinct traces of Athenian compilation are discoverable in the language of the poems, the total absence of Athenian national feeling is perhaps no less worthy of observation. In later, and it may fairly be suspected in earlier times, the Athenians were more than ordinarily jealous of the fame of their ancestors. But, amid all the traditions of the glories of early Greece embodied in the Iliad, the Athenians play a most subordinate and insignificant part. Even the few passages which relate to their ancestors, Mr. Knight suspects to be interpolations. It is possible, indeed, that in its leading outline, the Iliad may be true to historic fact, that in the great maritime expedition of western Greece against the rival and half-kindred empire of the Laomedontiadae, the chieftain of Thessaly, from his valour and the number of his forces, may have been the most important ally of the Peloponnesian sovereign; the preeminent value of the ancient poetry on the Trojan war may thus have forced the national feeling of the Athenians to yield to their taste. The songs which spoke of their own great ancestor were, no doubt, of far inferior sublimity and popularity, or, at first sight, a Theseid would have been much more likely to have emanated from an Athenian synod of compilers of[pg xxii] ancient song, than an Achilleid or an Olysseid. Could France have given birth to a Tasso, Tancred would have been the hero of the Jerusalem. If, however, the Homeric ballads, as they are sometimes called, which related the wrath of Achilles, with all its direful consequences, were so far superior to the rest of the poetic cycle, as to admit no rivalry, héng it is still surprising, that throughout the whole poem the callida junctura should never betray the workmanship of an Athenian hand, and that the national spirit of a race, who have at a later period not inaptly been compared to our self admiring neighbours, the French, should submit with lofty self denial to the almost total exclusion of their own ancestors héng or, at least, to the questionable dignity of only having produced a leader tolerably skilled in the military tactics of his age."27
  
  To return to the Wolfian theory. While it is to be confessed, that Wolf's objections to the primitive integrity of the Iliad and Odyssey have never been wholly got over, we cannot help discovering that they have failed to enlighten us as to any substantial point, and that the difficulties with which the whole subject is beset, are rather augmented than otherwise, if we admit his hypothesis. Nor is Lachmann's28 modification of his theory any better. He divides the first twenty-two books of the Iliad into sixteen different songs, and treats as ridiculous the belief that their amalgamation into one regular poem belongs to a period earlier than the age of Peisistratus. This, as Grote observes, "explains the gaps and contradictions in the narrative, but it explains nothing else." Moreover, we find no contradictions warranting this belief, and the so-called sixteen poets concur in getting rid of the following leading men in the first battle after the secession of Achilles: Elphenor, chief of the Euboeans; Tlepolemus, of the Rhodians; Pandarus, of the Lycians; Odius, of the Halizonians; Pirous and Acamas, of the Thracians. None of these heroes again make their appearance, and we can but agree with Colonel Mure, that "it seems strange that any number of independent poets should have so harmoniously dispensed with the services of all six in the sequel." The discrepancy, by which Pylaemenes, who is represented as dead in the fifth book, weeps at his son's funeral in the thirteenth, can only be regarded as the result of an interpolation.
  
  Grote, although not very distinct in stating his own opinions on the subject, has done much to clearly show the incongruity of the Wolfian theory, and of Lachmann's modifications with the character of Peisistratus. But he has also shown, and we think with equal success, that the two questions relative to the primitive unity of these poems, or, supposing that impossible, the unison of these parts by Peisistratus, and not before his time, are essentially distinct. In short, "a man may believe the Iliad to have been put together out of pre-existing songs, without recognising the age of Peisistratus as the period of its first compilation." The friends or literary employes of Peisistratus must have found an Iliad that was already ancient, and the silence of the Alexandrine critics respecting the Peisistratic "recension," goes far[pg xxiii] to prove, that, among the numerous manuscripts they examined, this was either wanting, or thought unworthy of attention.
  
  "Moreover," he continues, "the whole tenor of the poems themselves confirms what is here remarked. There is nothing, either in the Iliad or Odyssey, which savours of modernism, applying that term to the age of Peisistratus héng nothing which brings to our view the alterations brought about by two centuries, in the Greek language, the coined money, the habits of writing and reading, the despotisms and republican governments, the close military array, the improved construction of ships, the Amphiktyonic convocations, the mutual frequentation of religious festivals, the Oriental and Egyptian veins of religion, &c., familiar to the latter epoch. These alterations Onomakritus, and the other literary friends of Peisistratus, could hardly have failed to notice, even without design, had they then, for the first time, undertaken the task of piecing together many self existent epics into one large aggregate. Everything in the two great Homeric poems, both in substance and in language, belongs to an age two or three centuries earlier than Peisistratus. Indeed, even the interpolations (or those passages which, on the best grounds, are pronounced to be such) betray no trace of the sixth century before Christ, and may well have been heard by Archilochus and Kallinus héng in some cases even by Arktinus and Hesiod héng as genuine Homeric matter29 As far as the evidences on the case, as well internal as external, enable us to judge, we seem warranted in believing that the Iliad and Odyssey were recited substantially as they now stand (always allowing for paitial divergences of text and interpolations) in 776 B.C., our first trustworthy mark of Grecian time; and this ancient date, let it be added, as it is the best-authenticated fact, so it is also the most important attribute of the Homeric poems, considered in reference to Grecian history; for they thus afford us an insight into the anti-historical character of the Greeks, enabling us to trace the subsequent forward march of the nation, and to seize instructive contrasts between their former and their later condition."30
  
  On the whole, I am inclined to believe, that the labours of Peisistratus were wholly of an editorial character, although, I must confess, that I can lay down nothing respecting the extent of his labours. At the same time, so far from believing that the composition or primary arrangement of these poems, in their present form, was the work of Peisistratus, I am rather persuaded that the fine taste and elegant mind of that Athenian31 would lead him to preserve an ancient and traditional order of the poems, rather than to patch and re-construct them according to a fanciful hypothesis. I will not repeat the many discussions respecting whether the poems were written or not, or whether the art of writing was known in the time of their reputed author. Suffice it to say, that the more we read, the less satisfied we are upon either subject.
  
  [pg xxiv]
  I cannot, however, help thinking, that the story which attributes the preservation of these poems to Lycurgus, is little else than a version of the same story as that of Peisistratus, while its historical probability must be measured by that of many others relating to the Spartan Confucius.
  
  I will conclude this sketch of the Homeric theories, with an attempt, made by an ingenious friend, to unite them into something like consistency. It is as follows: héng
  
  "No doubt the common soldiers of that age had, like the common sailors of some fifty years ago, some one qualified to 'discourse in excellent music' among them. Many of these, like those of the negroes in the United States, were extemporaneous, and allusive to events passing around them. But what was passing around them? The grand events of a spirit-stirring war; occurrences likely to impress themselves, as the mystical legends of former times had done, upon their memory; besides which, a retentive memory was deemed a virtue of the first water, and was cultivated accordingly in those ancient times. Ballads at first, and down to the beginning of the war with Troy, were merely recitations, with an intonation. Then followed a species of recitative, probably with an intoned burden. Tune next followed, as it aided the memory considerably.
  
  "It was at this period, about four hundred years after the war, that a poet flourished of the name of Melesigenes, or Moeonides, but most probably the former. He saw that these ballads might be made of great utility to his purpose of writing a poem on the social position of Hellas, and, as a collection, he published these lays, connecting them by a tale of his own. This poem now exists, under the title of the 'Odyssea.' The author, however, did not affix his own name to the poem, which, in fact, was, great part of it, remodelled from the archaic dialect of Crete, in which tongue the ballads were found by him. He therefore called it the poem of Homeros, or the Collector; but this is rather a proof of his modesty and talent, than of his mere drudging arrangement of other people's ideas; for, as Grote has finely observed, arguing for the unity of authorship, 'a great poet might have re-cast pre-existing separate songs into one comprehensive whole; but no mere arrangers or compilers would be competent to do so.'
  
  "While employed on the wild legend of Odysseus, he met with a ballad, recording the quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon. His noble mind seized the hint that there presented itself, and the Achilleis32 grew under his hand. Unity of design, however, caused him to publish the poem under the same pseudonyme as his former work: and the disjointed lays of the ancient bards were joined together, like those relating to the Cid, into a chronicle history, named the Iliad. Melesigenes knew that the poem was destined to be a lasting one, and so it has proved; but, first, the poems were destined to undergo many vicissitudes and corruptions, by the people who took to singing them in the streets, assemblies, and agoras. However, Solon first, and then[pg xxv] Peisistratus, and afterwards Aristoteles and others, revised the poems, and restored the works of Melesigenes Homeros to their original integrity in a great measure."33
  
  Having thus given some general notion of the strange theories which have developed themselves respecting this most interesting subject, I must still express my conviction as to the unity of the authorship of the Homeric poems. To deny that many corruptions and interpolations disfigure them, and that the intrusive hand of the poetasters may here and there have inflicted a wound more serious than the negligence of the copyist, would be an absurd and captious assumption, but it is to a higher criticism that we must appeal, if we would either understand or enjoy these poems. In maintaining the authenticity and personality of their one author, be he Homer or Melesigenes, quocunque nomine vocari eum jus fasque sit, I feel conscious that, while the whole weight of historical evidence is against the hypothesis which would assign these great works to a plurality of authors, the most powerful internal evidence, and that which springs from the deepest and most immediate impulse of the soul, also speaks eloquently to the contrary.
  
  The minutiae of verbal criticism I am far from seeking to despise. Indeed, considering the character of some of my own books, such an attempt would be gross inconsistency. But, while I appreciate its importance in a philological view, I am inclined to set little store on its aesthetic value, especially in poetry. Three parts of the emendations made upon poets are mere alterations, some of which, had they been suggested to the author by his Maecenas or Africanus, he would probably have adopted. Moreover, those who are most exact in laying down rules of verbal criticism and interpretation, are often least competent to carry out their own precepts. Grammarians are not poets by profession, but may be so per accidens. I do not at this moment remember two emendations on Homer, calculated to substantially improve the poetry of a passage, although a mass of remarks, from Herodotus down to Loewe, have given us the history of a thousand minute points, without which our Greek knowledge would be gloomy and jejune.
  
  But it is not on words only that grammarians, mere grammarians, will exercise their elaborate and often tiresome ingenuity. Binding down an heroic or dramatic poet to the block upon which they have previously dissected his words and sentences, they proceed to use the axe and the pruning knife by wholesale, and inconsistent in everything but their wish to make out a case of unlawful affiliation, they cut out book after book, passage after passage, till the author is reduced to a collection of fragments, or till those, who fancied they possessed the works of some great man, find that they have been put off with a vile counterfeit got up at second hand. If we compare the theories of Knight, Wolf, Lachmann, and others, we shall feel better satisfied of the utter uncertainty of criticism than of the apocryphal position of Homer. One rejects what another considers the turning-point of his[pg xxvi] theory. One cuts a supposed knot by expunging what another would explain by omitting something else.
  
  Nor is this morbid species of sagacity by any means to be looked upon as a literary novelty. Justus Lipsius, a scholar of no ordinary skill, seems to revel in the imaginary discovery, that the tragedies attributed to Seneca are by four different authors.34 Now, I will venture to assert, that these tragedies are so uniform, not only in their borrowed phraseology héng a phraseology with which writers like Boethius and Saxo Grammaticus were more charmed than ourselves héng in their freedom from real poetry, and last, but not least, in an ultra-refined and consistent abandonment of good taste, that few writers of the present day would question the capabilities of the same gentleman, be he Seneca or not, to produce not only these, but a great many more equally bad. With equal sagacity, Father Hardouin astonished the world with the startling announcement that the Æneid of Virgil, and the satires of Horace, were literary deceptions. Now, without wishing to say one word of disrespect against the industry and learning héng nay, the refined acuteness héng which scholars, like Wolf, have bestowed upon this subject, I must express my fears, that many of our modern Homeric theories will become matter for the surprise and entertainment, rather than the instruction, of posterity. Nor can I help thinking, that the literary history of more recent times will account for many points of difficulty in the transmission of the Iliad and Odyssey to a period so remote from that of their first creation.
  
  I have already expressed my belief that the labours of Peisistratus were of a purely editorial character; and there seems no more reason why corrupt and imperfect editions of Homer may not have been abroad in his day, than that the poems of Valerius Flaccus and Tibullus should have given so much trouble to Poggio, Scaliger, and others. But, after all, the main fault in all the Homeric theories is, that they demand too great a sacrifice of those feelings to which poetry most powerfully appeals, and which are its most fitting judges. The ingenuity which has sought to rob us of the name and existence of Homer, does too much violence to that inward emotion, which makes our whole soul yearn with love and admiration for the blind bard of Chios. To believe the author of the Iliad a mere compiler, is to degrade the powers of human invention; to elevate analytical judgment at the expense of the most ennobling impulses of the soul; and to forget the ocean in the contemplation of a polypus. There is a catholicity, so to speak, in the very name of Homer. Our faith in the author of the Iliad may be a mistaken one, but as yet nobody has taught us a better.
  
  While, however, I look upon the belief in Homer as one that has nature herself for its mainspring; while I can join with old Ennius in believing in Homer as the ghost, who, like some patron saint, hovers round the bed of the poet, and even bestows rare gifts from that wealth of imagination which a host of imitators could not exhaust, héng still I am far from wishing to deny that the author of these great poems found a rich fund of tradition, a well-stocked mythical storehouse from whence[pg xxvii] he might derive both subject and embellishment. But it is one thing to use existing romances in the embellishment of a poem, another to patch up the poem itself from such materials. What consistency of style and execution can be hoped for from such an attempt? or, rather, what bad taste and tedium will not be the infallible result?
  
  A blending of popular legends, and a free use of the songs of other bards, are features perfectly consistent with poetical originality. In fact, the most original writer is still drawing upon outward impressions héng nay, even his own thoughts are a kind of secondary agents which support and feed the impulses of imagination. But unless there be some grand pervading principle héng some invisible, yet most distinctly stamped archetypus of the great whole, a poem like the Iliad can never come to the birth. Traditions the most picturesque, episodes the most pathetic, local associations teeming with the thoughts of gods and great men, may crowd in one mighty vision, or reveal themselves in more substantial forms to the mind of the poet; but, except the power to create a grand whole, to which these shall be but as details and embellishments, be present, we shall have nought but a scrap-book, a parterre filled with flowers and weeds strangling each other in their wild redundancy: we shall have a cento of rags and tatters, which will require little acuteness to detect.
  
  Sensible as I am of the difficulty of disproving a negative, and aware as I must be of the weighty grounds there are for opposing my belief, it still seems to me that the Homeric question is one that is reserved for a higher criticism than it has often obtained. We are not by nature intended to know all things; still less, to compass the powers by which the greatest blessings of life have been placed at our disposal. Were faith no virtue, then we might indeed wonder why God willed our ignorance on any matter. But we are too well taught the contrary lesson; and it seems as though our faith should be especially tried touching the men and the events which have wrought most influence upon the condition of humanity. And there is a kind of sacredness attached to the memory of the great and the good, which seems to bid us repulse the scepticism which would allegorize their existence into a pleasing apologue, and measure the giants of intellect by an homeopathic dynameter.
  
  Long and habitual reading of Homer appears to familiarize our thoughts even to his incongruities; or rather, if we read in a right spirit and with a heartfelt appreciation, we are too much dazzled, too deeply wrapped in admiration of the whole, to dwell upon the minute spots which mere analysis can discover. In reading an heroic poem we must transform ourselves into heroes of the time being, we in imagination must fight over the same battles, woo the same loves, burn with the same sense of injury, as an Achilles or a Hector. And if we can but attain this degree of enthusiasm (and less enthusiasm will scarcely suffice for the reading of Homer), we shall feel that the poems of Homer are not only the work of one writer, but of the greatest writer that ever touched the hearts of men by the power of song.
  
  And it was this supposed unity of authorship which gave these poems their powerful influence over the minds of the men of old.[pg xxviii] Heeren, who is evidently little disposed in favour of modern theories, finely observes: héng
  
  "It was Homer who formed the character of the Greek nation. No poet has ever, as a poet, exercised a similar influence over his countrymen. Prophets, lawgivers, and sages have formed the character of other nations; it was reserved to a poet to form that of the Greeks. This is a feature in their character which was not wholly erased even in the period of their degeneracy. When lawgivers and sages appeared in Greece, the work of the poet had already been accomplished; and they paid homage to his superior genius. He held up before his nation the mirror, in which they were to behold the world of gods and heroes no less than of feeble mortals, and to behold them reflected with purity and truth. His poems are founded on the first feeling of human nature; on the love of children, wife, and country; on that passion which outweighs all others, the love of glory. His songs were poured forth from a breast which sympathized with all the feelings of man; and therefore they enter, and will continue to enter, every breast which cherishes the same sympathies. If it is granted to his immortal spirit, from another heaven than any of which he dreamed on earth, to look down on his race, to see the nations from the fields of Asia to the forests of Hercynia, performing pilgrimages to the fountain which his magic wand caused to flow; if it is permitted to him to view the vast assemblage of grand, of elevated, of glorious productions, which had been called into being by means of his songs; wherever his immortal spirit may reside, this alone would suffice to complete his happiness."35
  
  Can we contemplate that ancient monument, on which the "Apotheosis of Homer"36 is depictured, and not feel how much of pleasing association, how much that appeals most forcibly and most distinctly to our minds, is lost by the admittance of any theory but our old tradition? The more we read, and the more we think héng think as becomes the readers of Homer, héng the more rooted becomes the conviction that the Father of Poetry gave us this rich inheritance, whole and entire. Whatever were the means of its preservation, let us rather be thankful for the treasury of taste and eloquence thus laid open to our use, than seek to make it a mere centre around which to drive a series of theories, whose wildness is only equalled by their inconsistency with each other.
  
  As the hymns, and some other poems usually ascribed to Homer, are not included in Pope's translation, I will content myself with a brief account of the Battle of the Frogs and Mice, from the pen of a writer who has done it full justice37: héng
  
  "This poem," says Coleridge, "is a short mock-heroic of ancient date. The text varies in different editions, and is obviously disturbed and corrupt to a great degree; it is commonly said to have been a juvenile essay of Homer's genius; others have attributed it to the same Pigrees,[pg xxix] mentioned above, and whose reputation for humour seems to have invited the appropriation of any piece of ancient wit, the author of which was uncertain; so little did the Greeks, before the age of the Ptolemies, know or care about that department of criticism employed in determining the genuineness of ancient writings. As to this little poem being a youthful prolusion of Homer, it seems sufficient to say that from the beginning to the end it is a plain and palpable parody, not only of the general spirit, but of the numerous passages of the Iliad itself; and even, if no such intention to parody were discernible in it, the objection would still remain, that to suppose a work of mere burlesque to be the primary effort of poetry in a simple age, seems to reverse that order in the development of national taste, which the history of every other people in Europe, and of many in Asia, has almost ascertained to be a law of the human mind; it is in a state of society much more refined and permanent than that described in the Iliad, that any popularity would attend such a ridicule of war and the gods as is contained in this poem; and the fact of there having existed three other poems of the same kind attributed, for aught we can see, with as much reason to Homer, is a strong inducement to believe that none of them were of the Homeric age. Knight infers from the usage of the word deltos, "writing tablet," instead of diphthera, "skin," which, according to Herod. 5, 58, was the material employed by the Asiatic Greeks for that purpose, that this poem was another offspring of Attic ingenuity; and generally that the familiar mention of the cock (v. 191) is a strong argument against so ancient a date for its composition."
  
  Having thus given a brief account of the poems comprised in Pope's design, I will now proceed to make a few remarks on his translation, and on my own purpose in the present edition.
  
  Pope was not a Grecian. His whole education had been irregular, and his earliest acquaintance with the poet was through the version of Ogilby. It is not too much to say that his whole work bears the impress of a disposition to be satisfied with the general sense, rather than to dive deeply into the minute and delicate features of language. Hence his whole work is to be looked upon rather as an elegant paraphrase than a translation. There are, to be sure, certain conventional anecdotes, which prove that Pope consulted various friends, whose classical attainments were sounder than his own, during the undertaking; but it is probable that these examinations were the result rather of the contradictory versions already existing, than of a desire to make a perfect transcript of the original. And in those days, what is called literal translation was less cultivated than at present. If something like the general sense could be decorated with the easy gracefulness of a practised poet; if the charms of metrical cadence and a pleasing fluency could be made consistent with a fair interpretation of the poet's meaning, his words were less jealously sought for, and those who could read so good a poem as Pope's Iliad had fair reason to be satisfied.
  
  It would be absurd, therefore, to test Pope's translation by our own advancing knowledge of the original text. We must be content to[pg xxx] look at it as a most delightful work in itself, héng a work which is as much a part of English literature as Homer himself is of Greek. We must not be torn from our kindly associations with the old Iliad, that once was our most cherished companion, or our most looked-for prize, merely because Buttmann, Loewe, and Liddell have made us so much more accurate as to amphikupellon being an adjective, and not a substantive. Far be it from us to defend the faults of Pope, especially when we think of Chapman's fine, bold, rough old English; héng far be it from, us to hold up his translation as what a translation of Homer might be. But we can still dismiss Pope's Iliad to the hands of our readers, with the consciousness that they must have read a very great number of books before they have read its fellow.
  
  As to the Notes accompanying the present volume, they are drawn up without pretension, and mainly with the view of helping the general reader. Having some little time since translated all the works of Homer for another publisher, I might have brought a large amount of accumulated matter, sometimes of a critical character, to bear upon the text. But Pope's version was no field for such a display; and my purpose was to touch briefly on antiquarian or mythological allusions, to notice occasionally some departures from the original, and to give a few parallel passages from our English Homer, Milton. In the latter task I cannot pretend to novelty, but I trust that my other annotations, while utterly disclaiming high scholastic views, will be found to convey as much as is wanted; at least, as far as the necessary limits of these volumes could be expected to admit. To write a commentary on Homer is not my present aim; but if I have made Pope's translation a little more entertaining and instructive to a mass of miscellaneous readers, I shall consider my wishes satisfactorily accomplished.
  
  THEODORE ALOIS BUCKLEY.
  
  Christ Church.
  
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  [pg xxxi]
  POPE'S PREFACE TO THE ILIAD OF HOMER
  Homer is universally allowed to have had the greatest invention of any writer whatever. The praise of judgment Virgil has justly contested with him, and others may have their pretensions as to particular excellences; but his invention remains yet unrivalled. Nor is it a wonder if he has ever been acknowledged the greatest of poets, who most excelled in that which is the very foundation of poetry. It is the invention that, in different degrees, distinguishes all great geniuses: the utmost stretch of human study, learning, and industry, which masters everything besides, can never attain to this. It furnishes art with all her materials, and without it judgment itself can at best but "steal wisely:" for art is only like a prudent steward that lives on managing the riches of nature. Whatever praises may be given to works of judgment, there is not even a single beauty in them to which the invention must not contribute: as in the most regular gardens, art can only reduce beauties of nature to more regularity, and such a figure, which the common eye may better take in, and is, therefore, more entertained with. And, perhaps, the reason why common critics are inclined to prefer a judicious and methodical genius to a great and fruitful one, is, because they find it easier for themselves to pursue their observations through a uniform and bounded walk of art, than to comprehend the vast and various extent of nature.
  
  Our author's work is a wild paradise, where, if we cannot see all the beauties so distinctly as in an ordered garden, it is only because the number of them is infinitely greater. It is like a copious nursery, which contains the seeds and first productions of every kind, out of which those who followed him have but _select_ed some particular plants, each according to his fancy, to cultivate and beautify. If some things are too luxuriant it is owing to the richness of the soil; and if others are not arrived to perfection or maturity, it is only because they are overrun and oppressed by those of a stronger nature.
  
  It is to the strength of this amazing invention we are to attribute that unequalled fire and rapture which is so forcible in Homer, that no man of a true poetical spirit is master of himself while he reads him. What he writes is of the most animated nature imaginable; every thing moves, every thing lives, and is put in action. If a council be called, or a battle fought, you are not coldly informed of what was said[pg xxxii] or done as from a third person; the reader is hurried out of himself by the force of the poet's imagination, and turns in one place to a hearer, in another to a spectator. The course of his verses resembles that of the army he describes,
  
  Hoid' ar' isan hosei te puri chthon pasa nemoito.
  "They pour along like a fire that sweeps the whole earth before it." It is, however, remarkable, that his fancy, which is everywhere vigorous, is not discovered immediately at the beginning of his poem in its fullest splendour: it grows in the progress both upon himself and others, and becomes on fire, like a chariot-wheel, by its own rapidity. Exact disposition, just thought, correct elocution, polished numbers, may have been found in a thousand; but this poetic fire, this "vivida vis animi," in a very few. Even in works where all those are imperfect or neglected, this can overpower criticism, and make us admire even while we disapprove. Nay, where this appears, though attended with absurdities, it brightens all the rubbish about it, till we see nothing but its own splendour. This fire is discerned in Virgil, but discerned as through a glass, reflected from Homer, more shining than fierce, but everywhere equal and constant: in Lucan and Statius it bursts out in sudden, short, and interrupted flashes: In Milton it glows like a furnace kept up to an uncommon ardour by the force of art: in Shakspeare it strikes before we are aware, like an accidental fire from heaven: but in Homer, and in him only, it burns everywhere clearly and everywhere irresistibly.
  
  I shall here endeavour to show how this vast invention exerts itself in a manner superior to that of any poet through all the main constituent parts of his work: as it is the great and peculiar characteristic which distinguishes him from all other authors.
  
  This strong and ruling faculty was like a powerful star, which, in the violence of its course, drew all things within its vortex. It seemed not enough to have taken in the whole circle of arts, and the whole compass of nature, to supply his maxims and reflections; all the inward passions and affections of mankind, to furnish his characters: and all the outward forms and images of things for his descriptions: but wanting yet an ampler sphere to expatiate in, he opened a new and boundless walk for his imagination, and created a world for himself in the invention of fable. That which Aristotle calls "the soul of poetry," was first breathed into it by Homer, I shall begin with considering him in his part, as it is naturally the first; and I speak of it both as it means the design of a poem, and as it is taken for fiction.
  
  Fable may be divided into the probable, the allegorical, and the marvellous. The probable fable is the recital of such actions as, though they did not happen, yet might, in the common course of nature; or of such as, though they did, became fables by the additional episodes and manner of telling them. Of this sort is the main story of an epic poem, "The return of Ulysses, the settlement of the Trojans in Italy," or the like. That of the Iliad is the "anger of Achilles," the most short and single subject that ever was chosen by any poet. Yet this he has supplied with a vaster variety of incidents[pg xxxiii] and events, and crowded with a greater number of councils, speeches, battles, and episodes of all kinds, than are to be found even in those poems whose schemes are of the utmost latitude and irregularity. The action is hurried on with the most vehement spirit, and its whole duration employs not so much as fifty days. Virgil, for want of so warm a genius, aided himself by taking in a more extensive subject, as well as a greater length of time, and contracting the design of both Homer's poems into one, which is yet but a fourth part as large as his. The other epic poets have used the same practice, but generally carried it so far as to superinduce a multiplicity of fables, destroy the unity of action, and lose their readers in an unreasonable length of time. Nor is it only in the main design that they have been unable to add to his invention, but they have followed him in every episode and part of story. If he has given a regular catalogue of an army, they all draw up their forces in the same order. If he has funeral games for Patroclus, Virgil has the same for Anchises, and Statius (rather than omit them) destroys the unity of his actions for those of Archemorus. If Ulysses visit the shades, the Æneas of Virgil and Scipio of Silius are sent after him. If he be detained from his return by the allurements of Calypso, so is Æneas by Dido, and Rinaldo by Armida. If Achilles be absent from the army on the score of a quarrel through half the poem, Rinaldo must absent himself just as long on the like account. If he gives his hero a suit of celestial armour, Virgil and Tasso make the same present to theirs. Virgil has not only observed this close imitation of Homer, but, where he had not led the way, supplied the want from other Greek authors. Thus the story of Sinon, and the taking of Troy, was copied (says Macrobius) almost word for word from Pisander, as the loves of Dido and Æneas are taken from those of Medea and Jason in Apollonius, and several others in the same manner.
  
  To proceed to the allegorical fable héng If we reflect upon those innumerable knowledges, those secrets of nature and physical philosophy which Homer is generally supposed to have wrapped up in his allegories, what a new and ample scene of wonder may this consideration afford us! How fertile will that imagination appear, which as able to clothe all the properties of elements, the qualifications of the mind, the virtues and vices, in forms and persons, and to introduce them into actions agreeable to the nature of the things they shadowed! This is a field in which no succeeding poets could dispute with Homer, and whatever commendations have been allowed them on this head, are by no means for their invention in having enlarged his circle, but for their judgment in having contracted it. For when the mode of learning changed in the following ages, and science was delivered in a plainer manner, it then became as reasonable in the more modern poets to lay it aside, as it was in Homer to make use of it. And perhaps it was no unhappy circumstance for Virgil, that there was not in his time that demand upon him of so great an invention as might be capable of furnishing all those allegorical parts of a poem.
  
  The marvellous fable includes whatever is supernatural, and especially the machines of the gods. If Homer was not the first who introduced the deities (as Herodotus imagines) into the religion of[pg xxxiv] Greece, he seems the first who brought them into a system of machinery for poetry, and such a one as makes its greatest importance and dignity: for we find those authors who have been offended at the literal notion of the gods, constantly laying their accusation against Homer as the chief support of it. But whatever cause there might be to blame his machines in a philosophical or religious view, they are so perfect in the poetic, that mankind have been ever since contented to follow them: none have been able to enlarge the sphere of poetry beyond the limits he has set: every attempt of this nature has proved unsuccessful; and after all the various changes of times and religions, his gods continue to this day the gods of poetry.
  
  We come now to the characters of his persons; and here we shall find no author has ever drawn so many, with so visible and surprising a variety, or given us such lively and affecting impressions of them. Every one has something so singularly his own, that no painter could have distinguished them more by their features, than the poet has by their manners. Nothing can be more exact than the distinctions he has observed in the different degrees of virtues and vices. The single quality of courage is wonderfully diversified in the several characters of the Iliad. That of Achilles is furious and intractable; that of Diomede forward, yet listening to advice, and subject to command; that of Ajax is heavy and self-confiding; of Hector, active and vigilant: the courage of Agamemnon is inspirited by love of empire and ambition; that of Menelaus mixed with softness and tenderness for his people: we find in Idomeneus a plain direct soldier; in Sarpedon a gallant and generous one. Nor is this judicious and astonishing diversity to be found only in the principal quality which constitutes the main of each character, but even in the under parts of it, to which he takes care to give a tincture of that principal one. For example: the main characters of Ulysses and Nestor consist in wisdom; and they are distinct in this, that the wisdom of one is artificial and various, of the other natural, open, and regular. But they have, besides, characters of courage; and this quality also takes a different turn in each from the difference of his prudence; for one in the war depends still upon caution, the other upon experience. It would be endless to produce instances of these kinds. The characters of Virgil are far from striking us in this open manner; they lie, in a great degree, hidden and undistinguished; and, where they are marked most evidently affect us not in proportion to those of Homer. His characters of valour are much alike; even that of Turnus seems no way peculiar, but, as it is, in a superior degree; and we see nothing that differences the courage of Mnestheus from that of Sergestus, Cloanthus, or the rest, In like manner it may be remarked of Statius's heroes, that an air of impetuosity runs through them all; the same horrid and savage courage appears in his Capaneus, Tydeus, Hippomedon, &c. They have a parity of character, which makes them seem brothers of one family. I believe when the reader is led into this tract of reflection, if he will pursue it through the epic and tragic writers, he will be convinced how infinitely superior, in this point, the invention of Homer was to that of all others.
  
  [pg xxxv]
  The speeches are to be considered as they flow from the characters; being perfect or defective as they agree or disagree with the manners, of those who utter them. As there is more variety of characters in the Iliad, so there is of speeches, than in any other poem. "Everything in it has manner" (as Aristotle expresses it), that is, everything is acted or spoken. It is hardly credible, in a work of such length, how small a number of lines are employed in narration. In Virgil the dramatic part is less in proportion to the narrative, and the speeches often consist of general reflections or thoughts, which might be equally just in any person's mouth upon the same occasion. As many of his persons have no apparent characters, so many of his speeches escape being applied and judged by the rule of propriety. We oftener think of the author himself when we read Virgil, than when we are engaged in Homer, all which are the effects of a colder invention, that interests us less in the action described. Homer makes us hearers, and Virgil leaves us readers.
  
  If, in the next place, we take a view of the sentiments, the same presiding faculty is eminent in the sublimity and spirit of his thoughts. Longinus has given his opinion, that it was in this part Homer principally excelled. What were alone sufficient to prove the grandeur and excellence of his sentiments in general, is, that they have so remarkable a parity with those of the Scripture. Duport, in his Gnomologia Homerica, has collected innumerable instances of this sort. And it is with justice an excellent modern writer allows, that if Virgil has not so many thoughts that are low and vulgar, he has not so many that are sublime and noble; and that the Roman author seldom rises into very astonishing sentiments where he is not fired by the Iliad.
  
  If we observe his descriptions, images, and similes, we shall find the invention still predominant. To what else can we ascribe that vast comprehension of images of every sort, where we see each circumstance of art, and individual of nature, summoned together by the extent and fecundity of his imagination to which all things, in their various views presented themselves in an instant, and had their impressions taken off to perfection at a heat? Nay, he not only gives us the full prospects of things, but several unexpected peculiarities and side views, unobserved by any painter but Homer. Nothing is so surprising as the descriptions of his battles, which take up no less than half the Iliad, and are supplied with so vast a variety of incidents, that no one bears a likeness to another; such different kinds of deaths, that no two heroes are wounded in the same manner, and such a profusion of noble ideas, that every battle rises above the last in greatness, horror, and confusion. It is certain there is not near that number of images and descriptions in any epic poet, though every one has assisted himself with a great quantity out of him; and it is evident of Virgil especially, that he has scarce any comparisons which are not drawn from his master.
  
  If we descend from hence to the expression, we see the bright imagination of Homer shining out in the most enlivened forms of it. We acknowledge him the father of poetical diction; the first who taught that "language of the gods" to men. His expression is like[pg xxxvi] the colouring of some great masters, which discovers itself to be laid on boldly, and executed with rapidity. It is, indeed, the strongest and most glowing imaginable, and touched with the greatest spirit. Aristotle had reason to say, he was the only poet who had found out "living words;" there are in him more daring figures and metaphors than in any good author whatever. An arrow is "impatient" to be on the wing, a weapon "thirsts" to drink the blood of an enemy, and the like, yet his expression is never too big for the sense, but justly great in proportion to it. It is the sentiment that swells and fills out the diction, which rises with it, and forms itself about it, for in the same degree that a thought is warmer, an expression will be brighter, as that is more strong, this will become more perspicuous; like glass in the furnace, which grows to a greater magnitude, and refines to a greater clearness, only as the breath within is more powerful, and the heat more intense.
  
  To throw his language more out of prose, Homer seems to have affected the compound epithets. This was a sort of composition peculiarly proper to poetry, not only as it heightened the diction, but as it assisted and filled the numbers with greater sound and pomp, and likewise conduced in some measure to thicken the images. On this last consideration I cannot but attribute these also to the fruitfulness of his invention, since (as he has managed them) they are a sort of supernumerary pictures of the persons or things to which they were joined. We see the motion of Hector's plumes in the epithet Korythaiolos, the landscape of Mount Neritus in that of Einosiphyllos, and so of others, which particular images could not have been insisted upon so long as to express them in a description (though but of a single line) without diverting the reader too much from the principal action or figure. As a metaphor is a short simile, one of these epithets is a short description.
  
  Lastly, if we consider his versification, we shall be sensible what a share of praise is due to his invention in that also. He was not satisfied with his language as he found it settled in any one part of Greece, but searched through its different dialects with this particular view, to beautify and perfect his numbers he considered these as they had a greater mixture of vowels or consonants, and accordingly employed them as the verse required either a greater smoothness or strength. What he most affected was the Ionic, which has a peculiar sweetness, from its never using contractions, and from its custom of resolving the diphthongs into two syllables, so as to make the words open themselves with a more spreading and sonorous fluency. With this he mingled the Attic contractions, the broader Doric, and the feebler Æolic, which often rejects its aspirate, or takes off its accent, and completed this variety by altering some letters with the licence of poetry. Thus his measures, instead of being fetters to his sense, were always in readiness to run along with the warmth of his rapture, and even to give a further representation of his notions, in the correspondence of their sounds to what they signified. Out of all these he has derived that harmony which makes us confess he had not only the richest head, but the finest ear in the world. This is so great a truth, that whoever will but[pg xxxvii] consult the tune of his verses, even without understanding them (with the same sort of diligence as we daily see practised in the case of Italian operas), will find more sweetness, variety, and majesty of sound, than in any other language of poetry. The beauty of his numbers is allowed by the critics to be copied but faintly by Virgil himself, though they are so just as to ascribe it to the nature of the Latin tongue: indeed the Greek has some advantages both from the natural sound of its words, and the turn and cadence of its verse, which agree with the genius of no other language. Virgil was very sensible of this, and used the utmost diligence in working up a more intractable language to whatsoever graces it was capable of, and, in particular, never failed to bring the sound of his line to a beautiful agreement with its sense. If the Grecian poet has not been so frequently celebrated on this account as the Roman, the only reason is, that fewer critics have understood one language than the other. Dionysius of Halicarnassus has pointed out many of our author's beauties in this kind, in his treatise of the Composition of Words. It suffices at present to observe of his numbers, that they flow with so much ease, as to make one imagine Homer had no other care than to transcribe as fast as the Muses dictated, and, at the same time, with so much force and inspiriting vigour, that they awaken and raise us like the sound of a trumpet. They roll along as a plentiful river, always in motion, and always full; while we are borne away by a tide of verse, the most rapid, and yet the most smooth imaginable.
  
  Thus on whatever side we contemplate Homer, what principally strikes us is his invention. It is that which forms the character of each part of his work; and accordingly we find it to have made his fable more extensive and copious than any other, his manners more lively and strongly marked, his speeches more affecting and transported, his sentiments more warm and sublime, his images and descriptions more full and animated, his expression more raised and daring, and his numbers more rapid and various. I hope, in what has been said of Virgil, with regard to any of these heads, I have no way derogated from his character. Nothing is more absurd or endless, than the common method of comparing eminent writers by an opposition of particular passages in them, and forming a judgment from thence of their merit upon the whole. We ought to have a certain knowledge of the principal character and distinguishing excellence of each: it is in that we are to consider him, and in proportion to his degree in that we are to admire him. No author or man ever excelled all the world in more than one faculty; and as Homer has done this in invention, Virgil has in judgment. Not that we are to think that Homer wanted judgment, because Virgil had it in a more eminent degree; or that Virgil wanted invention, because Homer possessed a larger share of it; each of these great authors had more of both than perhaps any man besides, and are only said to have less in comparison with one another. Homer was the greater genius, Virgil the better artist. In one we most admire the man, in the other the work. Homer hurries and transports us with a commanding impetuosity; Virgil leads us with an attractive majesty; Homer scatters with a generous profusion;[pg xxxviii] Virgil bestows with a careful magnificence; Homer, like the Nile, pours out his riches with a boundless overflow; Virgil, like a river in its banks, with a gentle and constant stream. When we behold their battles, methinks the two poets resemble the heroes they celebrate. Homer, boundless and resistless as Achilles, bears all before him, and shines more and more as the tumult increases; Virgil, calmly daring, like Æneas, appears undisturbed in the midst of the action; disposes all about him, and conquers with tranquillity. And when we look upon their machines, Homer seems like his own Jupiter in his terrors, shaking Olympus, scattering the lightnings, and firing the heavens: Virgil, like the same power in his benevolence, counselling with the gods, laying plans for empires, and regularly ordering his whole creation.
  
  But after all, it is with great parts, as with great virtues, they naturally border on some imperfection; and it is often hard to distinguish exactly where the virtue ends, or the fault begins. As prudence may sometimes sink to suspicion, so may a great judgment decline to coldness; and as magnanimity may run up to profusion or extravagance, so may a great invention to redundancy or wildness. If we look upon Homer in this view, we shall perceive the chief objections against him to proceed from so noble a cause as the excess of this faculty.
  
  Among these we may reckon some of his marvellous fictions, upon which so much criticism has been spent, as surpassing all the bounds of probability. Perhaps it may be with great and superior souls, as with gigantic bodies, which, exerting themselves with unusual strength, exceed what is commonly thought the due proportion of parts, to become miracles in the whole; and, like the old heroes of that make, commit something near extravagance, amidst a series of glorious and inimitable performances. Thus Homer has his "speaking horses;" and Virgil his "myrtles distilling blood;" where the latter has not so much as contrived the easy intervention of a deity to save the probability.
  
  It is owing to the same vast invention, that his similes have been thought too exuberant and full of circumstances. The force of this faculty is seen in nothing more, than in its inability to confine itself to that single circumstance upon which the comparison is grounded: it runs out into embellishments of additional images, which, however, are so managed as not to overpower the main one. His similes are like pictures, where the principal figure has not only its proportion given agreeable to the original, but is also set off with occasional ornaments and prospects. The same will account for his manner of heaping a number of comparisons together in one breath, when his fancy suggested to him at once so many various and correspondent images. The reader will easily extend this observation to more objections of the same kind.
  
  If there are others which seem rather to charge him with a defect or narrowness of genius, than an excess of it, those seeming defects will be found upon examination to proceed wholly from the nature of the times he lived in. Such are his grosser representations of the gods; and the vicious and imperfect manners of his heroes; but I must here[pg xxxix] speak a word of the latter, as it is a point generally carried into extremes, both by the censurers and defenders of Homer. It must be a strange partiality to antiquity, to think with Madame Dacier,38 "that those times and manners are so much the more excellent, as they are more contrary to ours." Who can be so prejudiced in their favour as to magnify the felicity of those ages, when a spirit of revenge and cruelty, joined with the practice of rapine and robbery, reigned through the world: when no mercy was shown but for the sake of lucre; when the greatest princes were put to the sword, and their wives and daughters made slaves and concubines? On the other side, I would not be so delicate as those modern critics, who are shocked at the servile offices and mean employments in which we sometimes see the heroes of Homer engaged. There is a pleasure in taking a view of that simplicity, in opposition to the luxury of succeeding ages: in beholding monarchs without their guards; princes tending their flocks, and princesses drawing water from the springs. When we read Homer, we ought to reflect that we are reading the most ancient author in the heathen world; and those who consider him in this light, will double their pleasure in the perusal of him. Let them think they are growing acquainted with nations and people that are now no more; that they are stepping almost three thousand years back into the remotest antiquity, and entertaining themselves with a clear and surprising vision of things nowhere else to be found, the only true mirror of that ancient world. By this means alone their greatest obstacles will vanish; and what usually creates their dislike, will become a satisfaction.
  
  This consideration may further serve to answer for the constant use of the same epithets to his gods and heroes; such as the "far-darting Phoebus," the "blue-eyed Pallas," the "swift-footed Achilles," &c., which some have censured as impertinent, and tediously repeated. Those of the gods depended upon the powers and offices then believed to belong to them; and had contracted a weight and veneration from the rites and solemn devotions in which they were used: they were a sort of attributes with which it was a matter of religion to salute them on all occasions, and which it was an irreverence to omit. As for the epithets of great men, Mons. Boileau is of opinion, that they were in the nature of surnames, and repeated as such; for the Greeks having no names derived from their fathers, were obliged to add some other distinction of each person; either naming his parents expressly, or his place of birth, profession, or the like: as Alexander the son of Philip, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, Diogenes the Cynic, &c. Homer, therefore, complying with the custom of his country, used such distinctive additions as better agreed with poetry. And, indeed, we have something parallel to these in modern times, such as the names of Harold Harefoot, Edmund Ironside, Edward Longshanks, Edward the Black Prince, &c. If yet this be thought to account better for the propriety than for the repetition, I shall add a further conjecture. Hesiod, dividing the world into its different ages, has placed a fourth age, between the brazen and the iron one, of "heroes distinct from other[pg xl] men; a divine race who fought at Thebes and Troy, are called demi-gods, and live by the care of Jupiter in the islands of the blessed." Now among the divine honours which were paid them, they might have this also in common with the gods, not to be mentioned without the solemnity of an epithet, and such as might be acceptable to them by celebrating their families, actions or qualities.
  
  What other cavils have been raised against Homer, are such as hardly deserve a reply, but will yet be taken notice of as they occur in the course of the work. Many have been occasioned by an injudicious endeavour to exalt Virgil; which is much the same, as if one should think to raise the superstructure by undermining the foundation: one would imagine, by the whole course of their parallels, that these critics never so much as heard of Homer's having written first; a consideration which whoever compares these two poets ought to have always in his eye. Some accuse him for the same things which they overlook or praise in the other; as when they prefer the fable and moral of the Æneis to those of the Iliad, for the same reasons which might set the Odyssey above the Æneis; as that the hero is a wiser man, and the action of the one more beneficial to his country than that of the other; or else they blame him for not doing what he never designed; as because Achilles is not as good and perfect a prince as Æneas, when the very moral of his poem required a contrary character: it is thus that Rapin judges in his comparison of Homer and Virgil. Others _select_ those particular passages of Homer which are not so laboured as some that Virgil drew out of them: this is the whole management of Scaliger in his Poetics. Others quarrel with what they take for low and mean expressions, sometimes through a false delicacy and refinement, oftener from an ignorance of the graces of the original, and then triumph in the awkwardness of their own translations: this is the conduct of Perrault in his Parallels. Lastly, there are others, who, pretending to a fairer proceeding, distinguish between the personal merit of Homer, and that of his work; but when they come to assign the causes of the great reputation of the Iliad, they found it upon the ignorance of his times, and the prejudice of those that followed: and in pursuance of this principle, they make those accidents (such as the contention of the cities, &c.) to be the causes of his fame, which were in reality the consequences of his merit. The same might as well be said of Virgil, or any great author whose general character will infallibly raise many casual additions to their reputation. This is the method of Mons. de la Mott; who yet confesses upon the whole that in whatever age Homer had lived, he must have been the greatest poet of his nation, and that he may be said in his sense to be the master even of those who surpassed him.39
  
  In all these objections we see nothing that contradicts his title to the honour of the chief invention: and as long as this (which is indeed the characteristic of poetry itself) remains unequalled by his followers, he still continues superior to them. A cooler judgment may commit fewer faults, and be more approved in the eyes of one sort of critics: but that warmth of fancy will carry the loudest and most[pg xli] universal applauses which holds the heart of a reader under the strongest enchantment. Homer not only appears the inventor of poetry, but excels all the inventors of other arts, in this, that he has swallowed up the honour of those who succeeded him. What he has done admitted no increase, it only left room for contraction or regulation. He showed all the stretch of fancy at once; and if he has failed in some of his flights, it was but because he attempted everything. A work of this kind seems like a mighty tree, which rises from the most vigorous seed, is improved with industry, flourishes, and produces the finest fruit: nature and art conspire to raise it; pleasure and profit join to make it valuable: and they who find the justest faults, have only said that a few branches which run luxuriant through a richness of nature, might be lopped into form to give it a more regular appearance.
  
  Having now spoken of the beauties and defects of the original, it remains to treat of the translation, with the same view to the chief characteristic. As far as that is seen in the main parts of the poem, such as the fable, manners, and sentiments, no translator can prejudice it but by wilful omissions or contractions. As it also breaks out in every particular image, description, and simile, whoever lessens or too much softens those, takes off from this chief character. It is the first grand duty of an interpreter to give his author entire and unmaimed; and for the rest, the diction and versification only are his proper province, since these must be his own, but the others he is to take as he finds them.
  
  It should then be considered what methods may afford some equivalent in our language for the graces of these in the Greek. It is certain no literal translation can be just to an excellent original in a superior language: but it is a great mistake to imagine (as many have done) that a rash paraphrase can make amends for this general defect; which is no less in danger to lose the spirit of an ancient, by deviating into the modern manners of expression. If there be sometimes a darkness, there is often a light in antiquity, which nothing better preserves than a version almost literal. I know no liberties one ought to take, but those which are necessary to transfusing the spirit of the original, and supporting the poetical style of the translation: and I will venture to say, there have not been more men misled in former times by a servile, dull adherence to the letter, than have been deluded in ours by a chimerical, insolent hope of raising and improving their author. It is not to be doubted, that the fire of the poem is what a translator should principally regard, as it is most likely to expire in his managing: however, it is his safest way to be content with preserving this to his utmost in the whole, without endeavouring to be more than he finds his author is, in any particular place. It is a great secret in writing, to know when to be plain, and when poetical and figurative; and it is what Homer will teach us, if we will but follow modestly in his footsteps. Where his diction is bold and lofty, let us raise ours as high as we can; but where his is plain and humble, we ought not to be deterred from imitating him by the fear of incurring the censure of a mere English critic. Nothing that belongs to Homer[pg xlii] seems to have been more commonly mistaken than the just pitch of his style: some of his translators having swelled into fustian in a proud confidence of the sublime; others sunk into flatness, in a cold and timorous notion of simplicity. Methinks I see these different followers of Homer, some sweating and straining after him by violent leaps and bounds (the certain signs of false mettle), others slowly and servilely creeping in his train, while the poet himself is all the time proceeding with an unaffected and equal majesty before them. However, of the two extremes one could sooner pardon frenzy than frigidity; no author is to be envied for such commendations, as he may gain by that character of style, which his friends must agree together to call simplicity, and the rest of the world will call dulness. There is a graceful and dignified simplicity, as well as a bold and sordid one; which differ as much from each other as the air of a plain man from that of a sloven: it is one thing to be tricked up, and another not to be dressed at all. Simplicity is the mean between ostentation and rusticity.
  
  This pure and noble simplicity is nowhere in such perfection as in the Scripture and our author. One may affirm, with all respect to the inspired writings, that the Divine Spirit made use of no other words but what were intelligible and common to men at that time, and in that part of the world; and, as Homer is the author nearest to those, his style must of course bear a greater resemblance to the sacred books than that of any other writer. This consideration (together with what has been observed of the parity of some of his thoughts) may, methinks, induce a translator, on the one hand, to give in to several of those general phrases and manners of expression, which have attained a veneration even in our language from being used in the Old Testament; as, on the other, to avoid those which have been appropriated to the Divinity, and in a manner consigned to mystery and religion.
  
  For a further preservation of this air of simplicity, a particular care should be taken to express with all plainness those moral sentences and proverbial speeches which are so numerous in this poet. They have something venerable, and as I may say, oracular, in that unadorned gravity and shortness with which they are delivered: a grace which would be utterly lost by endeavouring to give them what we call a more ingenious (that is, a more modern) turn in the paraphrase.
  
  Perhaps the mixture of some Graecisms and old words after the manner of Milton, if done without too much affectation, might not have an ill effect in a version of this particular work, which most of any other seems to require a venerable, antique cast. But certainly the use of modern terms of war and government, such as "platoon, campaign, junto," or the like, (into which some of his translators have fallen) cannot be allowable; those only excepted without which it is impossible to treat the subjects in any living language.
  
  There are two peculiarities in Homer's diction, which are a sort of marks or moles by which every common eye distinguishes him at first sight; those who are not his greatest admirers look upon them as defects, and those who are, seemed pleased with them as beauties. I speak of his compound epithets, and of his repetitions. Many of the[pg xliii] former cannot be done literally into English without destroying the purity of our language. I believe such should be retained as slide easily of themselves into an English compound, without violence to the ear or to the received rules of composition, as well as those which have received a sanction from the authority of our best poets, and are become familiar through their use of them; such as "the cloud-compelling Jove," &c. As for the rest, whenever any can be as fully and significantly expressed in a single word as in a compounded one, the course to be taken is obvious.
  
  Some that cannot be so turned, as to preserve their full image by one or two words, may have justice done them by circumlocution; as the epithet einosiphyllos to a mountain, would appear little or ridiculous translated literally "leaf-shaking," but affords a majestic idea in the periphrasis: "the lofty mountain shakes his waving woods." Others that admit of different significations, may receive an advantage from a judicious variation, according to the occasions on which they are introduced. For example, the epithet of Apollo, hekaebolos or "far-shooting," is capable of two explications; one literal, in respect of the darts and bow, the ensigns of that god; the other allegorical, with regard to the rays of the sun; therefore, in such places where Apollo is represented as a god in person, I would use the former interpretation; and where the effects of the sun are described, I would make choice of the latter. Upon the whole, it will be necessary to avoid that perpetual repetition of the same epithets which we find in Homer, and which, though it might be accommodated (as has been already shown) to the ear of those times, is by no means so to ours: but one may wait for opportunities of placing them, where they derive an additional beauty from the occasions on which they are employed; and in doing this properly, a translator may at once show his fancy and his judgment.
  
  As for Homer's repetitions, we may divide them into three sorts: of whole narrations and speeches, of single sentences, and of one verse or hemistitch. I hope it is not impossible to have such a regard to these, as neither to lose so known a mark of the author on the one hand, nor to offend the reader too much on the other. The repetition is not ungraceful in those speeches, where the dignity of the speaker renders it a sort of insolence to alter his words; as in the messages from gods to men, or from higher powers to inferiors in concerns of state, or where the ceremonial of religion seems to require it, in the solemn forms of prayers, oaths, or the like. In other cases, I believe the best rule is, to be guided by the nearness, or distance, at which the repetitions are placed in the original: when they follow too close, one may vary the expression; but it is a question, whether a professed translator be authorized to omit any: if they be tedious, the author is to answer for it.
  
  It only remains to speak of the versification. Homer (as has been said) is perpetually applying the sound to the sense, and varying it on every new subject. This is indeed one of the most exquisite beauties of poetry, and attainable by very few: I only know of Homer eminent for it in the Greek, and Virgil in the Latin. I am sensible it is what may sometimes happen by chance, when a writer is warm, and fully[pg xliv] possessed of his image: however, it may reasonably be believed they designed this, in whose verse it so manifestly appears in a superior degree to all others. Few readers have the ear to be judges of it: but those who have, will see I have endeavoured at this beauty.
  
  Upon the whole, I must confess myself utterly incapable of doing justice to Homer. I attempt him in no other hope but that which one may entertain without much vanity, of giving a more tolerable copy of him than any entire translation in verse has yet done. We have only those of Chapman, Hobbes, and Ogilby. Chapman has taken the advantage of an immeasurable length of verse, notwithstanding which, there is scarce any paraphrase more loose and rambling than his. He has frequent interpolations of four or six lines; and I remember one in the thirteenth book of the Odyssey, ver. 312, where he has spun twenty verses out of two. He is often mistaken in so bold a manner, that one might think he deviated on purpose, if he did not in other places of his notes insist so much upon verbal trifles. He appears to have had a strong affectation of extracting new meanings out of his author; insomuch as to promise, in his rhyming preface, a poem of the mysteries he had revealed in Homer; and perhaps he endeavoured to strain the obvious sense to this end. His expression is involved in fustian; a fault for which he was remarkable in his original writings, as in the tragedy of Bussy d'Amboise, &c. In a word, the nature of the man may account for his whole performance; for he appears, from his preface and remarks, to have been of an arrogant turn, and an enthusiast in poetry. His own boast, of having finished half the Iliad in less than fifteen weeks, shows with what negligence his version was performed. But that which is to be allowed him, and which very much contributed to cover his defects, is a daring fiery spirit that animates his translation, which is something like what one might imagine Homer himself would have writ before he arrived at years of discretion.
  
  Hobbes has given us a correct explanation of the sense in general; but for particulars and circumstances he continually lops them, and often omits the most beautiful. As for its being esteemed a close translation, I doubt not many have been led into that error by the shortness of it, which proceeds not from his following the original line by line, but from the contractions above mentioned. He sometimes omits whole similes and sentences; and is now and then guilty of mistakes, into which no writer of his learning could have fallen, but through carelessness. His poetry, as well as Ogilby's, is too mean for criticism.
  
  It is a great loss to the poetical world that Mr. Dryden did not live to translate the Iliad. He has left us only the first book, and a small part of the sixth; in which if he has in some places not truly interpreted the sense, or preserved the antiquities, it ought to be excused on account of the haste he was obliged to write in. He seems to have had too much regard to Chapman, whose words he sometimes copies, and has unhappily followed him in passages where he wanders from the original. However, had he translated the whole work, I would no more have attempted Homer after him than Virgil: his version of whom (notwithstanding some human errors) is the most noble and spirited translation I know in any language. But the fate of great geniuses is like[pg xlv] that of great ministers: though they are confessedly the first in the commonwealth of letters, they must be envied and calumniated only for being at the head of it.
  
  That which, in my opinion, ought to be the endeavour of any one who translates Homer, is above all things to keep alive that spirit and fire which makes his chief character: in particular places, where the sense can bear any doubt, to follow the strongest and most poetical, as most agreeing with that character; to copy him in all the variations of his style, and the different modulations of his numbers; to preserve, in the more active or descriptive parts, a warmth and elevation; in the more sedate or narrative, a plainness and solemnity; in the speeches, a fulness and perspicuity; in the sentences, a shortness and gravity; not to neglect even the little figures and turns on the words, nor sometimes the very cast of the periods; neither to omit nor confound any rites or customs of antiquity: perhaps too he ought to include the whole in a shorter compass than has hitherto been done by any translator who has tolerably preserved either the sense or poetry. What I would further recommend to him is, to study his author rather from his own text, than from any commentaries, how learned soever, or whatever figure they may make in the estimation of the world; to consider him attentively in comparison with Virgil above all the ancients, and with Milton above all the moderns. Next these, the Archbishop of Cambray's Telemachus may give him the truest idea of the spirit and turn of our author; and Bossu's admirable Treatise of the Epic Poem the justest notion of his design and conduct. But after all, with whatever judgment and study a man may proceed, or with whatever happiness he may perform such a work, he must hope to please but a few; those only who have at once a taste of poetry, and competent learning. For to satisfy such a want either, is not in the nature of this undertaking; since a mere modern wit can like nothing that is not modern, and a pedant nothing that is not Greek.
  
  What I have done is submitted to the public; from whose opinions I am prepared to learn; though I fear no judges so little as our best poets, who are most sensible of the weight of this task. As for the worst, whatever they shall please to say, they may give me some concern as they are unhappy men, but none as they are malignant writers. I was guided in this translation by judgments very different from theirs, and by persons for whom they can have no kindness, if an old observation be true, that the strongest antipathy in the world is that of fools to men of wit. Mr. Addison was the first whose advice determined me to undertake this task; who was pleased to write to me upon that occasion in such terms as I cannot repeat without vanity. I was obliged to Sir Richard Steele for a very early recommendation of my undertaking to the public. Dr. Swift promoted my interest with that warmth with which he always serves his friend. The humanity and frankness of Sir Samuel Garth are what I never knew wanting on any occasion. I must also acknowledge, with infinite pleasure, the many friendly offices, as well as sincere criticisms, of Mr. Congreve, who had led me the way in translating some parts of Homer. I must add the names of Mr. Rowe, and Dr. Parnell, though I shall take a further opportunity of doing justice to the last, whose good nature (to[pg xlvi] give it a great panegyric), is no less extensive than his learning. The favour of these gentlemen is not entirely undeserved by one who bears them so true an affection. But what can I say of the honour so many of the great have done me; while the first names of the age appear as my subscribers, and the most distinguished patrons and ornaments of learning as my chief encouragers? Among these it is a particular pleasure to me to find, that my highest obligations are to such who have done most honour to the name of poet: that his grace the Duke of Buckingham was not displeased I should undertake the author to whom he has given (in his excellent Essay), so complete a praise:
  
  "Read Homer once, and you can read no more;
  For all books else appear so mean, so poor,
  Verse will seem prose: but still persist to read,
  And Homer will be all the books you need."
  That the Earl of Halifax was one of the first to favour me; of whom it is hard to say whether the advancement of the polite arts is more owing to his generosity or his example: that such a genius as my Lord Bolingbroke, not more distinguished in the great scenes of business, than in all the useful and entertaining parts of learning, has not refused to be the critic of these sheets, and the patron of their writer: and that the noble author of the tragedy of "Heroic Love" has continued his partiality to me, from my writing pastorals to my attempting the Iliad. I cannot deny myself the pride of confessing, that I have had the advantage not only of their advice for the conduct in general, but their correction of several particulars of this translation.
  
  I could say a great deal of the pleasure of being distinguished by the Earl of Carnarvon; but it is almost absurd to particularize any one generous action in a person whose whole life is a continued series of them. Mr. Stanhope, the present secretary of state, will pardon my desire of having it known that he was pleased to promote this affair. The particular zeal of Mr. Harcourt (the son of the late Lord Chancellor) gave me a proof how much I am honoured in a share of his friendship. I must attribute to the same motive that of several others of my friends: to whom all acknowledgments are rendered unnecessary by the privileges of a familiar correspondence; and I am satisfied I can no way better oblige men of their turn than by my silence.
  
  In short, I have found more patrons than ever Homer wanted. He would have thought himself happy to have met the same favour at Athens that has been shown me by its learned rival, the University of Oxford. And I can hardly envy him those pompous honours he received after death, when I reflect on the enjoyment of so many agreeable obligations, and easy friendships, which make the satisfaction of life. This distinction is the more to be acknowledged, as it is shown to one whose pen has never gratified the prejudices of particular parties, or the vanities of particular men. Whatever the success may prove, I shall never repent of an undertaking in which I have experienced the candour and friendship of so many persons of merit; and in which I hope to pass some of those years of youth that are generally lost in a circle of follies, after a manner neither wholly unuseful to others, nor disagreeable to myself.