文集列表
yī lì yà tè The Iliad
伊利亚特
     zài xī fāng wén xué shǐ shàng, xī là shǐ shī《 yī lì yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài》 shì xiàn cún zuì zǎo de jīng pǐn。 yī bān rèn wéi, zhè liǎng bù shǐ shī de zuò zhě shì xī fāng wén yì shǐ shàng dì yī wèi yòu zuò pǐn chuán shì de tiān cái、 yǐn yù quán qiú de xī là shī rén hé mǎ。 hé mǎ shǐ shī de lì shǐ bèi jǐng shì kuàng shí shí nián、 guī mó hóng wěi、 gěi jiāo zhàn shuāng fāng zào chéng zhòng dà chuāngshāng de tè luò yī zhàn zhēng。 xiàng xǔ duō zhòng dà shì jiàn yī yàng, zhè chǎng zhàn zhēng, yòng tā de xuè hé huǒ, gěi wén xué hé yì shù tí gōng liǎo qǔ zhī bù jìn de sù cái。 yīng xióng men de yè jì chù fā liǎo shī rén de líng gǎn, gěi tā men 'ān shàng liǎo xiǎng xiàng de chì bǎng, shǐ tā men zài lì shǐ hé xiàn shí zhī jiān zhǎo dào yī piàn wén xué de wò tǔ, zài shǐ shí hé chuán wén zhī shàng jià qǐ wǔ guāng shí sè de qiáo liáng, yòng cái huá de lí tóu, gēng yún zài dāo qiāng pèng xiǎng de tián yě, zhǐ diǎn zhàn zhēng de fēng yún, cuī fā shī de fāng cǎo, gē de xiāng huā。
  
                tè luò yī zhàn zhēng hé shǐ shī xì liè
  
     jiǔ shì de suì yuè gěi tè luò yī zhàn zhēng méng shàng liǎo yī céng shén mì de sè cǎi。 dàn shì, bāo kuò xī luó duō dé hé xiū xī dǐ dé zài nèi de lì shǐ xué jiā men yī bān dōubù fǒu rèn zhè chǎng zhàn zhēng de zhēn shí xìng, suī rán duì tā jìn xíng de nián dài, zì gǔ yǐ lái biàn méi yòu yī zhǒng tǒng yī de dìng shuō。 àn xī luó duō dé tuī cè, tè luò yī zhàn zhēng jìn xíng de nián dài yuē zài gōng yuán qián 1250 nián zuǒ yòu, [ ● ] ér gēn jù MorPchum de jìzǎi, xī là rén gōng xiàn tè luò yī de shí jiān yìng zài qián 1290 héng 8 nián jiān。 jìn dài mǒu xiē xué zhě jiāng pò chéng shí jiān gū fàng zài qián 1370 nián zuǒ yòu。 xī là xué zhě 'è lā tuō sài nài sī( Eratosthenes, shēng yú qián 275 nián) de kǎo zhèng hé tí fǎ dé dào yī pī xué rén de zàn tóng héng héng tā de dìng qǔ shì qián 1193 héng 84 nián。 dà tǐ shuō lái, xī fāng xué shù jiè yī bān qīng xiàng yú jiāng tè luò yī zhàn zhēng de jìn xíng nián dài nǐ dìng zài gōng yuán qián shí sān dào shí 'èr shì jì, jí mù kǎi nài( huò mài xī ní) wáng cháo( qián 1600 héng 1100 nián) de hòu qī。
    ●《 lì shǐ》 huò《 xī bō zhàn zhēng shǐ》 2·145·4。
     gēn jù gù shì hé chuán shuō, tè luò yī( jí yī lì 'áng) shì yī zuò fù yòu de chéng bǎo, zuò luò zài xiǎo yà xì yà de xī běi bù, bīn lín hè lè sī páng tè de shuǐ liú。 guó wáng pǔ lǐ 'ā mó sī zhī zǐ pà lǐ sī( jí yà lì kè shān dé luó sī) céng chū yóu yuǎn yáng, dǐ sī bā dá, bèi shòu wáng zhě mò nài láo sī de kuǎn dài。 qí hòu, tā jiāng mò nài láo sī zhī qī hǎi lún dài chū sī bā dá, fǎn huí tè luò yī。 xī là( bāo kuò tā de “ zhí mín dì ”) gè dì de wáng zhě hé shǒu lǐng men yú shì fēng jù yún jí, yì yù jìn bīng tè luò yī, duó huí hǎi lún。 jiàn duì huì jù 'ào lì sī, yóu mù kǎi nài guó wáng 'ā gā mén nóng tǒng lǐng。 jīng guò yī fān zhōu zhé, xī là lián jūn dēng 'àn tè luò yī, bīng lín chéng xià, dàn yī lián jiǔ nián bù dé pò huò。 zài dì shí nián lǐ, ā gā mén nóng hé lián jūn zhōng zuì hǎo de zhàn jiāng 'ā jī liú sī fā shēng zhēng zhí, hòu zhě yóu cǐ bà bīng bù zhàn, shǐ tè luò yī rén( yóu hè kè tuō 'ěr tǒng lǐng) jié jié huò shèng, bīng dǐ xī là rén de hǎi chuán hé yíng péng。 hè kè tuō 'ěr zhèn shā pà tè luó kè luò sī hòu, ā jī liú sī chóngfǎn zhàn chǎng, bī huí tè luò yī jūn wǔ, zhàn shā hè kè tuō 'ěr。 qí hòu, ā jī liú sī yì zhàn sǐ jiāng chǎng。 àn zhào shén yì, ā kāi yà rén( jí xī là rén) zuì zhōng gōng xià tè luò yī, dàng jié liǎo zhè zuò chéng bǎo。 shǒu lǐng men lì jīng mó nán, huí fǎn jiā yuán, miàn duì xīn de tiǎo zhàn, xīn de shēng huó。
     rú guǒ shuō tè luò yī zhàn zhēng shì yī jiàn què yòu qí shì de shǐ shí, shì dài xiāng chuán de kǒu shù hé bù kě bì miǎn de“ chuàng xīn” yǐ shǐ tā chéng wéi yī gè nèi róng fēng fù、 wǔ cǎi bīn fēn、 chōng mǎn shén huà hé chuán qí de gù shì huò gù shì xì liè。 jì hé mǎ yǐ hòu, shī rén men yòu yǐ tè luò yī zhàn zhēng wéi bèi jǐng, chuàng zuò liǎo yī xì liè shǐ shī, gòu chéng liǎo yī gè yòu xì tǒng de shǐ shī qún tǐ, jí yòu guān tè luò yī zhàn zhēng( huò yǐ tā wéi bèi jǐng) de shǐ shī xì liè。 [● ]“ xì liè” zhōng,《 kù pǔ lì yà》( Kypria, shí yī juàn) miáo xiě zhàn zhēng de qǐ yīn, jí fā shēng zài《 yī lì yà tè》 zhī qián de shì jiàn;《 āi xī 'é pī sī》( Aethiopis, wǔ juàn) hé《 xiǎo yī lì yà tè》( IliasMikra, sì juàn) yǐ jí《 tè luò yī shī xiàn》( Niupersis, liǎng juàn) xù bǔ《 yī lì yà tè》 yǐ hòu de shì jiàn;《 huí guī》( Nosti, wǔ juàn) xù jiǎng fǎn háng qián 'ā gā mén nóng hé mò nài láo sī guān yú huí fǎn lù xiàn de zhēng zhí, yǐ jí xiǎo 'āi 'ā sī zhī sǐ hé 'ā gā mén nóng huí jiā hòu bèi qī zǐ kè lǔ tài nài sī tè lā hé 'āi jí suǒ sī móu hài děng nèi róng。 hěn míng xiǎn, zhè sān bù shǐ shī tián bǔ liǎo《 yī lì yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài) zhī jiān de“ kòngquē”。 jǐn jiē zhe 'é dǐ xiū sī huí guī de gù shì( jí《 ào dé sài》), kù ruì nài shī rén 'ōu gā méng( Eugamon) chuàng zuò liǎo《 tè lè gē ní yà》( Telegonia, liǎng juàn), jiǎng shù 'é dǐ xiū sī hé jī 'ěr kǎi zhī zǐ tè lè gē nuò sī wài chū xún fù bìng zuì zhōng wù shā qí fù, yǐ hòu yòu hūn qǔ péi nài luó pèi děng shì jiàn。《 kù pǔ lì yà》 hé《 xiǎo yī lì yà tè》 děng shǐ shī nèi róng wú zá, jié gòu sōng sàn, quē shǎo bì yào de gài kuò hé tí liàn, qí yì shù chéng jiù yuǎn bù rú hé mǎ de《 yī lì yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài》。 yà lǐ sī duō dé rèn wéi, shǐ shī shī rén zhōng, wéi yòu hé mǎ bǎi tuō liǎo lì shǐ de jú xiàn, zhuóyì yú mó fǎng yī gè wán zhěng de xíng dòng, bì miǎn liǎo“ liú shuǐ zhàng” shì de píng pū zhí xù, bìn qì liǎo“ sǎnshā yī pán” shì de zhěng tǐ bù jú。 [● ] cóng shí jiān shàng lái kàn,《 kù pǔ lǐ yà》 děng míng xiǎn de wǎn yú hé mǎ chuàng zuò de nián dài, tā men suǒ miáo shù de yī xiē qíng jié kě néng qǔ cái yú hé mǎ qù shì hòu kāi shǐ liú xíng de chuán shuō。
    ● chú liǎo hé mǎ de《 yī lì yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài》 wài, qí tā shǐ shī jūn yǐ shī chuán。 cǐ wài, zhè xiē zuò pǐn huò shǐ shī zhǐ shì gǔ xī là shǐ shī xì liè( epikoskuklos) zhōng de yī bù fēn。 wèile biàn yú qū fēn hé duì bǐ, chuán tǒng shàng, rén men yī bān bù bǎ hé mǎ shǐ shī liè rù epiccycle de fàn wéi。
    ●《 shī xué》 8·1451a16 héng 30, 26·1462B8 héng 11。
  
                    hé mǎ
  
     lì shǐ shàng shì fǒu què céng yòu guò hé mǎ qí rén, xī là rén de huí dá shì kěn dìng de。 shēng huó zài gōng yuán qián qī shì jì shàng bàn yè de 'è fěi suǒ sī shī rén kǎ lì nuò sī( Callinos) céng tí jí shǐ shī《 sài bài dé》, rèn wéi tā shì hé mǎ de zuò pǐn; shēng huó zài qián liù shì jì de sè pǔ fǎ nài sī( Xenophanes) hé kāi 'é sī shī rén xī mó ní dé sī( Simonides, yuē qián 556 héng 468 nián) yě céng tí jí hé mǎ de míng zì。
     xī là rén xiāng xìn, hé mǎ( Homeros) chū shēng zài xiǎo yà xì yà, kě néng zài yī 'é ní yà( Ionia), yě kě néng zài 'āi 'é lì sī( Aeolis)。 gǔ shí hòu, zhì shǎo yòu qī gè dì fāng huò chéng shì jìng xiāng zhēng duó hé mǎ de“ suǒ yòu quán”, bāo kuò hé xiǎo yà xì yà gé hǎi xiāng wàng de yǎ diǎn hé 'ā 'ěr gē sī。 zài zhòng duō de jìng zhēng zhě zhōng, rén men jiào wéi qīng xiàng yú jiē shòu de yòu liǎng gè, jí yī 'é ní yà de jī 'é sī( Chios) hé 'āi 'é lì yà de sī mù 'ěr nà( Smuma)。 kāi 'é sī shī rén xī mó ní dé sī chēng hé mǎ wéi Chiosaner( jī 'é sī rén) [● ], pǐn dá zé rèn wéi jī 'é sī hé sī mù 'ěr nà tóng wéi hé mǎ de gù xiāng。 [● ] zhé xué jiā 'ā nà kè xī mò nài sī( Anaximenes) rèn dìng hé mǎ de jiā xiāng zài jī 'é sī; shǐ xué jiā 'ā kù xī láo sī( Acusilaos) hé hè lā ní kē sī( Hellanikos) yě biǎo shì guò tóng yàng de yì xiàng。 cǐ wài, zài gǔ shí guī yú hé mǎ míng xià de“ ā bō luó sòng” lǐ, zuò zhě chēng zì jǐ shì gè“ máng rén”, lái zì“ shān shí lín xún de jī 'é sī。” [● ]
    ● piàn duàn 85, Bergk; lìng jiàn piàn duàn 8, West
    ● gǔ shí hòu, rén men chuán tǒng shàngjiàng sī mù 'ěr nà dìng wéi hé mǎ de chū shēng dì, ér jiāng jī 'é sī kàn zuò shì tā chuàng biān《 yī lì yà tè》 de dì fāng, jí《 yī lì yà tè》 de“ gù xiāng”。
    ●《 hé mǎ shī sòng》,“ ā bō luó sòng” 172。
     sà mó sī shǐ xué jiā 'ōu gā 'áng( Eugaion) xiāng xìn hé mǎ wéi sī mù 'ěr nà rén, hé mǎ wèn tí zhuān jiā、 sà suǒ sī rén sī tè xīn bó luó tuō sī( Stesimbrotos, shēng huó zài qián wǔ shì jì) bù jǐn rèn dìng hé mǎ shì sī mù 'ěr nà rén, ér qiě hái shuō nà lǐ yòu shī rén de cí kān, shòu dào rén men xiàng jìng shén bān de chóng yǎng。 zài zǎo yǐ shī chuán de《 lùn shī rén》 lǐ, yà lǐ sī duō dé chēng hé mǎ zú yú xiǎo dǎo yī 'é sī( Ios), zhè yī tí fǎ kě néng qǔ zì dāng shí liú xíng de chuán wén。
     àn xī luó duō dé tuī suàn( yǐ měi bǎi nián sān dài rén jì), hé mǎ de shēng huó nián dài,“ jù jīn zhì duō bù chāo guò sì bǎi nián”, huàn yán zhī, dà yuē zài gōng yuán qián 850 nián zuǒ yòu。 [● ] xī luó duō dé jiāng hé mǎ hé hēi xī 'é dé guī wéi tóng shí dài de shī rén, [● ] ér sè nuò fǎ nài sī zé yǐ wéi hé mǎ de huó dòng nián dài zǎo yú hēi xī 'é dé。 [● ] xiū xī dǐ dé duì cǐ yòu guò jiànjiē de tí shù, rèn wéi hé mǎ shēng huó zài tè luò yī zhàn zhēng zhī hòu, qí jiān bù huì yòu tài jiǔ yuǎn de nián xì。 [● ] zhì chí zài gōng yuán qián qī zhì liù shì jì, yǐ yòu rén yǐn yòng hé mǎ de shī jù; zhì qián wǔ shì jì, hé mǎ yǐ shì jiā yù hù xiǎo de míng zì。 yóu cǐ kě jiàn, jiāng hé mǎ de shēng huó nián dài tuī dìng zài gōng yuán qián bā shì jì( zhì qī shì jì chū), yīngdāng bù néng suàn shì tài guò cǎo shuài de。 yī bān rèn wéi,《 yī lì yà tè》 de chuàng biān shí jiān kě néng zài gōng yuán qián 750 zhì 675 nián jiān。
    ●《 lì shǐ》 2·53·2。
    ●《 lì shǐ》 2·53·2。
    ● piàn duàn B13, Diels héng Kranz。
    ●《 bó luó bēn ní sǎ zhàn zhēng shǐ》 l·3·3。
  
                 《 yī lì yà tè》
  
     hé mǎ jì bù shì gǔ xī là wéi yī de、 yě bù shì zuì zǎo de shǐ shī shī rén。《 yī lì yà tè》 jī běn shàng qǔ yòng gǔ lǎo de yī 'é ní yà fāng yán, tóng shí yì bāo róng dà liàng de 'āi 'é lì sī fāng yán de yòng yǔ、 biàn gé hé qí tā yǔ fǎ tè zhēng, yòu de shèn zhì kě yǐ zhuī sù dào gǔ lǎo de mù kǎi nài shí dài。 cǐ wài, ā 'ěr kǎ dǐ yà yī sài pǔ lù sī fāng yán yě zài《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng liú xià liǎo tā de yìn jì。 hěn míng xiǎn, guān yú tè luò yī zhàn zhēng de shǐ shī qǐ yuán yú gǔ yuǎn de nián dài,( kě néng) yǐ bù tài cháng de gù shì xíng shì liú chuán yú gōng tíng、 jūn yíng hé mín jiān。 hé mǎ de gōng jì, bù zài yú shǒu chuàng miáo shù tè luò yī zhàn zhēng de gù shì huò shǐ shī, ér zài yú guǎng zhēng bó cǎi, qiǎo zhì jīng biān, tái qián rén zhī cháng, bì zhòng jiā zhī duǎn, yǐ dà shī rén de qíng huái, dà yì shù jiā de gōng lì, chuàng zuò liǎo《 yī lì yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài》 zhè liǎng bù bù xiǔ de shī piān。
     Ilaias, jí《 yī lì yà tè》, yì wéi“ guān yú yī lì 'áng de gù shì” huò“ yī lì 'áng shī jì”, zuò wéi shī míng, zuì zǎo jiàn zhī yú xī luó duō dé de zhù zuò。《 yī lì yà tè》 gòng 'èr shí sì juàn( xì hòu rén suǒ fēn), 15,693( ±) xíng, gè juàn de cháng dù cóng 429 dào 999 xíng bù děng。 hé mǎ shǐ shī cǎi yòng liù yīn bù cháng duǎn duǎn gé( jí yáng yì yì gé), qǔ qí qián cháng hòu duǎn de xià chōng zhī shì。 dàn shì, hé mǎ shǐ shī yòu bù shì cháng duǎn duǎn gé de“ yī tǒng tiān xià”。 shí jì shàng, chú dì wǔ yīn bù wài, qí tā yīn bù yì kě jiē shòu cháng cháng gé( jí yáng yáng gé); cǐ wài, dì liù yīn bù gèng shì cháng duǎn duǎn gé de“ jìn qū”, yī bān yòng cháng duǎn gé( jí yáng yì gé) qǔ 'ér dài zhī。 zhè yàng, wǒ men kě yòng xià liè fú hào huò fú hào zǔ hé, biǎo shì hé mǎ shǐ shī( huò liù yīn bù cháng duǎn duǎn gé xù shì shī, yīng xióng shǐ shī) de gé lǜ huò jié zòu xíng shì:
     héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng UUI héng U
     hé mǎ shì yī wèi yín sòng shī rén( aoides), shēng huó zài yī gè hái méi yòu shū miàn wén zì, huò shū miàn wén zì yǐ jīng shī chuán、 shàng wèi fù xīng huò chóngxīn shū rù( zhì shǎo shàng bù guǎng fàn liú xíng) de shí dài。 suǒ yǐ,《 yī lì yà tè》 shǒu xiān shì yī bù kǒu tóu wén xué zuò pǐn。 kǒu sòng shǐ shī de yī gè gòng tóng hé xiǎn zhù de tè diǎn shì cǎi yòng yī zhěng tào gù dìng huò xiāng duì gù dìng de shì cí、 duǎn yǔ hé duàn luò。 xiǎn rán, zhè yī chuàng zuò fāng shì yòu zhù yú shī rén de gòu zhì。 jì yì yǐ jí nán dù hěn dà de lín chǎng yín sòng hé bù kě bì miǎn de jí xīng fā huī。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, ā gā mén nóng shì“ jūn duì de tǒng shuài”( huò“ bīng zhòng de shǒu lǐng”), mò nài láo sī shì“ xiào hǒu zhàn chǎng de” zhàn jiāng; wǒ men dú dào“ chén léi yuǎn bō de” zhòu sī。“ bái bì bǎng de” hè lā、“ zú zhì duō móu de” é dǐ xiū sī、“ tóu kuī shǎn liàng de” hè kè tuō 'ěr、“ jié zú de” ā jī liú sī、“ jìng jiá jiān gù de” ā kāi yà rén、“ jiǔ lán sè de” dà hǎi hé“ tǔ dì féi wò de” tè luò yī。 zhè xiē chéng shì huà yòng yǔ( form . lae) bù jǐn diǎn chū liǎo bèi xiū shì zhě( míng cí, rén huò wù) de mǒu gè huò mǒu xiē tè diǎn。 shǔ xìng hé pǐn lèi, ér qiě yòu zhù yú xuàn rǎn hé mò shì shǐ shī níng zhòng、 hóng wěi hé sù mù de shī pǐn tè zhēng。 yīng xióng men“ gāo dà”、“ kuí wěi”、“ yīng jùn”, zài mǎn zú liǎo chī hē de yù wàng hòu xióng biàn tāo tāo, sòng tù“ cháng liǎo chì bǎng de huà yǔ”, huò tǎng xià xiǎng shòu shuì mián de xiāng tián。 yīng xióng men gǎn zuò gǎn wéi, shèng nù shí“ è hěn hěn dì dīng zhe” duì shǒu, zhèn wáng hòu cuì rán dǎo dì,“ hōng rán yī shēng, kǎi jiá zài shēn shàng kēng qiāng zuò xiǎng”。 tā men xiān shì quán fù wǔ zhuāng, jiē zhe chōng shàng zhàn chǎng, tiào xià zhàn chē, hé duì shǒu hù mà yī tōng, liào dǎo shù míng zhàn jiāng, bǎ dí rén gǎn dé huáng huáng bēn táo, rán hòu zì jǐ shòu cuò fù shāng, jǔ shǒu qiú gào shén yòu, chóngxīn huò dé yǒng qì hé lì liàng, jì xù zhàn dǒu, zhèn shā dí fāng de yóu shǒu。 jiē zhe, liǎng jūn wéi zhe shī tǐ zhǎn kāi 'è zhàn, shāng wáng cǎn zhòng, píng jiè shén de zhù yòu, cóng qiāng lín jiàn yǔ xià jiù chū zhèn wáng de jiànglǐng hé bàn yǒu。《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng miáo shù liǎo wǔ cì zhè yàng de“ zhuàng jǔ”( aristeiai), yòng liǎo lèi sì de mó shì, suī rán zài mǒu xiē dān xiàng shàng lüè yòu chū rù。 dà duàn de fù shù( rú 2·11 héng 15, 23 héng 33, 60 héng 70, 9·123 héng 57, 354 héng 99 děng) yòu zhù yú jiǎn qīng shī rén de láo dòng qiáng dù, jiā cháng shǐ shī de piān fú, shēn huà tīng zhòng duì mǒu xiē nèi róng de yìn xiàng。
     chéng shì huà yòng yǔ de xíng chéng hé fā zhǎn jīng lì liǎo màn cháng de suì yuè。 mǒu xiē yòng yǔ, yóu qí shì mǒu xiē shén zhī de zhǐ chēng, rú 'ā 'ěr jí fēng tè sī( hè 'ěr mò sī)、 ā tè lǔ tuō nài( yǎ diǎn nà) děng, zài hé mǎ shēng huó de nián dài kě néng yǐ shì“ huà shí” huò“ gǔ dǒng”。 zuò wéi shì cí,“ niú yǎn jīng de” kě néng chǎn shēng yú chóng bài tú téng de shí dài, zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ yǐ shī qù tā de zì miàn yì yì, chéng wéi“ měi lì de”、“ piào liàng de” tóng yì yǔ。
     yī wèi shén huò yīng xióng wǎng wǎng yòu yī gè yǐ shàng、 shèn zhì jǐ shí gè shì cí huò chéng shì huà yòng yǔ。 shī rén kě yǐ gēn jù gé lǜ hé yīn bù de xū yào xuǎn yòng hé shì de shì cí。 yǐ duì zhòu sī wéi lì, zài bù tóng de shàng xià wén hé gé lǜ zǔ hé lǐ, shī rén yòng liǎo bù tóng de xiū shì chéngfèn, bāo kuò“ duō móu shàn duàn de”、“ huì jù wū yún de”、“ chén léi yuǎn bō de” děng děng。 tóng yàng, gēn jù gé lǜ hé yīn lǜ de xū yào, shī rén yòu shí yòng“ cháng fā de”, yòu shí zé yòng“ jìng jiá jiān gù de”, ǒu 'ěr yě yòng“ shēn pī tóng jiá de” xiū shì 'ā kāi yà rén。 gé lǜ hé yīn lǜ yuán zé zhì yuē zhe shī rén de yòng cí, tóng shí yě fēng fù liǎo shǐ shī de yǔ yán, zēng qiáng liǎo tā de biǎo xiàn lì。 zhòng duō de shì cí shǐ shī rén yòu kě néng bù jǐn gēn jù gé lǜ de yào qiú, ér qiě hái néng zhào gù dào yì sī huò yǔ yì de xū yào, xuǎn yòng hé shì de yòng yǔ。 dāng 'ā jī liú sī chóu bèi pà tè luó kè luò sī de zàng lǐ shí, tā jiù bù zài shì“ jié zú de” yīng xióng, ér shì“ xīn xiōng háo zhuàng de” huǒ bàn, yīn wéi zài zhè yī yǔ jìng zhōng, hòu zhě sì hū bǐ qián zhě gèng jù zhuāng zhòng sù mù de sè cǎi。 rán 'ér, yòu shí, wèile zhào gù gé lǜ hé jù shì de guī zhěng, yě wéi liǎo wéi hù shǐ shī zhōng chéng shì huà yòng yǔ de wěn dìng xìng, shī rén yì huì yòu yì shí dì“ hū lüè” shì cí de yuán yì, ér bǎ tā men dàngzuò chún cuì de gé lǜ chéngfèn, fù jiā zài míng cí huò bèi xiū shì chéngfèn zhī shàng。 lì rú, wǒ men yī bān bù huì bǎ 'è mó bō lǔ fěi mó sī kàn zuò shì“ shén yī yàng de”(《 ào dé sài》 l·70) yīng xióng, yě bù huì qīng xiàng yú rèn wéi“ zūn guì de mǔ qīn” fú hé qǐ gài yī luó sī niàn qīn de shēn fèn(《 ào dé sài 10·5)。 yòu de chéng shì huà shì cí míng xiǎn dì bù fú hé bèi xiū shì chéngfèn dāng shí de zhuàng tài hé chǔjìng。 bǐ rú, ā fú luó dǐ tè zài yuān sù shí réng rán shì“ huān xiào de”( 5·375), bái rì de qíng kōng shì“ duō xīng de”( 8·46), ér 'āng zàng de yī fú zhào jiù shì“ shǎn guāng de”(《 ào dé sài》 6·26) děng děng。
     hé mǎ shì yī wèi gōng dǐ shēn hòu、 xiǎng xiàng fēng fù、 shàn yú chuàng xīn de yǔ yán dà shī。《 yī lì yà tè》“ cí zhāng huá lì, miào yǔ dié chū, jīng cǎi、 shēng dòng de yòng cí hé bǐ yù fǔ shí jiē shì。 hé mǎ zhī yòng 'àn yù( rú“ zhàn dǒu de píng zhàng”( yù shàn zhàn de zhuàng yǒng)。“ yáng qún de mǔ qīn”( yù shān dì), dàn què gèng wéi shú xī, yě gèng shàn shǐ yòng míng yù。《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng de míng yù fēn liǎng lèi, yī lèi wéi jiǎn dān xíng, lìng yī lèi zé shì cóng jiǎn dān xíng de jī chǔ shàng fā zhǎn 'ér lái de fù zá xíng。 jiǎn dān xíng míng yù de jié gòu tè zhēng shì A xiàng B。 āi 'ā sī de zhàn dùn“ xiàng yī dǔ qiáng”, bīng yǒng men xiàng láng huò shī zǐ sì dì zhàn dǒu。 ā bō luó cóng 'é lín bō sī shàng xià lái,“ xiàng hēi yè yī bān”( l·47); sài tí sī cóng hǎi lǐ chū lái,“ xiàng yī céng bó wù”( l·359)。 cǐ lèi míng yù, hé mǎ yòng lái dé xīn yìng shǒu, yùtiē zì rú, qí jì qiǎo kě wèi yǐ dá lú huǒ chún qīng de dì bù。
     lìng yī lèi míng yù, jí fù zá xíng míng yù, zài qí tā mín zú zǎo qī de shǐ shī zhōng jué shǎo chū xiàn, dàn zài hé mǎ shǐ shī zhōng què shì gè yòng lì zhòng duō、 qū yú pǔ tōng de yǔ yán xiàn xiàng。 cǐ lèi míng yù de jié gòu tè zhēng shì zài A xiàng B zhī hòu fù jiā yī zhěng duàn wán zhěng de nèi róng, qí xiū shì huò jiě shuō duì xiàng bù shì jiē shòu yù shì de A, ér shì zuò wéi yù xiàng wù de B。 lì rú:
     rú tóng yī wèi mài 'é ní yà huò kǎ lǐ yà fù nǚ, yòng xiān hóng de yán liào
     tú qī xiàng yá, zhì zuò yù mǎ de jiá piàn, jìn guǎn xǔ duō yù shǒu
     wéi zhī tuò xián yù dī, tā què jìng jìng dì tǎng zài
     lǐ wū, zuò wéi wáng zhě de jiā bǎo, shòu dào shuāngchóng de
     zhēn 'ài, jì shì mǎ de shì wù, yòu néng wéi yù zhě zēng tiān róng guāng。( 4·141 - 45)
     tōng cháng, shī rén yǐ“ jiù xiàng zhè yàng ……” jié shù míng yù, jì xù gù shì de jìn chéng:
     jiù xiàng zhè yàng, mò nài láo sī, xiān xuè jìn rǎn liǎo nǐ qiáng jiàn de
     dà tuǐ, nǐ de xiǎo tuǐ hé xiàn tiáo fēn míng de huái gǔ。( 4·146 héng 47)
     yī bān shuō lái, shǐ shī shǔ xù shì shī de fàn chóu。《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng de xù shù fēn liǎng zhǒng, yī zhǒng shì shī rén yǐ jiǎng xù zhě de shēn fèn suǒ zuò de xù shù, lìng yī zhǒng shì shī rén yǐ rén wù de shēn fèn suǒ jìn xíng de biǎo shù、 biǎo bái hé duì huà。 yà lǐ sī duō dé chēng dì yī zhǒng xíng shì wéi“ miáo shù”, chēng dì 'èr zhǒng xíng shì wéi“ biǎo yǎn”。 [● ]《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng, zhí jiē yǐn yǔ yuē zhàn yī bàn zuǒ yòu, ér zhí jiē yǐn yǔ jí wéi rén wù de xù shù( bāo kuò fù shù), jìn sì yú jù zhōng rén( dramafispersonae) de huà bái。 háo wú yí wèn, cǐ lèi yǔ yán xíng shì wéi biǎo yǎn shì xù shù tí gōng liǎo xiàn chéng de cái liào。 cóng zhè gè yì yì shàng lái shuō,《 yī lì yà tè》 shì jiè yú chún cuì de xù shì shī( jí shī rén wán quán huò jī běn shàng yǐ jiǎng shù zhě de shēn fèn xù shù) hé xì jù( shī) zhī jiān de yī zhǒng shī gē xíng shì。 bólātú rèn wéi, hé mǎ shǐ shī shǔ yú bēi jù de fàn chóu, [● ] ér hé mǎ shì“ dì yī gè bēi jù shī rén”。 [● ]
    ●《 shī xué》 3·1448a21 héng 24。
    ●《 gòng hé guó》 10·595C。
    ●《 gòng hé guó》 10·607A。
    《 yī lì yà tè》 miáo shù liǎo yīcháng hōng hōng liè liè de zhàn zhēng zhōng zuì bēi zhuàng de yī yè。 tā zhǎn shì liǎo zhàn zhēng de bào liè, hé píng de kě guì; shū biǎo liǎo shèng lì de xǐ yuè, shī bài de tòng kǔ; miáo shù liǎo yīng xióng de yè jì, zhēng zhàn de jiān nán。 tā chǎn shì rén hé shén de guān xì, shěn shì rén de shǔ xìng hé jià zhí; tā píng gū rén zài zhàn zhēng zhōng de dé shī, tàn suǒ cuī shǐ rén men xíng dòng de nèi wài yīn sù; zài yī gè shén rén huì zá、 shì shí hé xiǎng xiàng bìng cún、 guò qù hé xiàn zài jiāo róng de wén xué píng miàn shàng duì yǐng xiǎng rén de shēng huó、 jué dìng rén de sī xiǎng、 zhì dǎo rén de xíng wéi de yī xì liè zhòng dà wèn tí, jìn xíng liǎo yán sù de、 rèn zhēn de、 yòu shēn dù de tàn tǎo。
    《 yī lì yà tè》 suǒ chù jí de yī gè zuì gēn běn de wèn tí shì rén shēng de yòu xiàn hé zài zhè yī yòu xiàn de rén shēng zhōng rén duì shēng mìng hé cún zài jià zhí de suǒ qǔ。 hé píng shí qī de shēng huó shì měi hǎo de。 niú yáng zài shān pō shàng màn bù, gū niàn men zài quán xī biān huàn xǐ; nián qīng rén chuān suō zài xiào yǔ zhī zhōng, xǐ qì yáng yáng dì cǎi xié fēng chǎn de pú táo。 shī rén tánbō shù qín, dòng qíng de yǐnháng gāo gē; gū niàn xiǎo huǒ men chuānzhuó piào liàng de yī shān, tiào chū huān kuài de wǔ bù( 18·561 héng 72)。 rán 'ér, jí biàn shì diǎn xíng yì yì shàng de xìng fú shēng huó, yě bù kě bì miǎn dì bāo yùn zhe bēi chóu de zhǒng zǐ, rén de shǔ lèi shǐ tā zuì zhōng wú fǎ bǎi tuō sǐ de pò xié。 rén shì huì sǐ de, bù guǎn tā yuàn bù yuàn yì jiàn dào sǐ de jiàng lín。 rén shēng duǎn zàn, duǎn dé ràng rén bù hán 'ér lì:
     liè dì zhī shén, nǐ huì yǐ wèiwǒ tóu nǎo fā rè,
     cháng ruò wǒ hé nǐ kāi dǎ, wèile kě lián de fán rén。
     tā men xiàng shù yè yī yàng, yī shí jiān fēng huá sēn mào,
     rú huǒ de shēng jī, shí yòng dà dì cuī chǎn de shuò guǒ; rán 'ér hǎo jǐng bù cháng,
     tā men kū jié shuāi lǎo, tǐ huǐ rén wáng。( 21·462 héng 6)
     rén shēng rú tóng shù yè de cuī fā hé kū wáng; zài dì liù juàn dì 145 héng 49 xíng lǐ, hé mǎ yǐ biǎo shù guò zhè yī sī xiǎng。 zài zhàn zhēng zhōng, zài nǐ sǐ wǒ huó de jiǎo shā zhōng, sǐ wáng měi shí měi kè dōuzài fā shēng; rén men jiān jiào zhe fēn fēn dǎo dì,“ tóu liǎn cháo xià”,“ shǒu zhuā ní chén”。 sǐ shén bǎ chéng bǎi shàng qiān de zhuàng yǒng tuō rén yīn 'àn de dì fǔ; zhàn zhēng zhāng kāi xuè pén dà kǒu, tūn shì nián qīng de dǒu shì, cuì jiáo péng bó de rén shēng。 jí biàn yǒng liè rú 'ā jī liú sī, zuì zhōng yě jiāng zǒu shàng zhàn sǐ jiāng chǎng de xīn suān lù:
     dàn xiàn zài, shuí yě béng xiǎng sǐ lǐ táo shēng, cháng ruò shén 3 shì bǎ tā sòng dào
     wǒ de shǒu lǐ, zài zhè yī lì 'áng chéng qián…… suǒ yǐ,
     wǒ de péng yǒu, nǐ yě bì sǐ wú yí。 jì rú cǐ, nǐ yòu hé bì zhè bān jí shǒu tòng xīn?
     pà tè luó kè luò sī yǐ jīng sǐ qù, yī wèi yuǎn bǐ nǐ jié chū de zhàn yǒng。
     hái yòu wǒ héng héng méi kàn jiàn má? cháng dé hé děng gāo dà、 yīng wǔ,
     yòu yī wèi xiǎn hè de fù qīn, ér shēng wǒ de mǔ qīn gèng shì yī wèi bù sǐ de nǚ shén。
     rán 'ér, jiù lián wǒ yě táo bù tuō sǐ hé qiáng yòu lì de mìng yùn de pò xié,
     jiāng zài mǒu yī tiān fú xiǎo、 huáng hūn huò zhōng wǔ,
     bèi mǒu yī gè rén fàng dǎo, zài zhàn dǒu zhōng,
     yòng tóu qiāng, huò shì lí xián de jiàn zú。( 21·103 héng 13) bīng yǒng men zhī xiǎo tā men de shǐ mìng, tā men de guī sù; nà shì zhàn dǒu de rén shēng。 zhèng rú 'é dǐ xiū sī kāng kǎi chén cí de nà yàng:…… wǒ men, àn zhe
     zhòu sī de yì zhì, lì jīng cán kù de zhàn zhēng, cóng qīng zhuàng
     dǎ dào lǎo nián, zhí zhì sǐ wáng, shuí yě bù néng xìng miǎn。( qiě 485 héng 87) shēng mìng duǎn zàn, zhàn zhēng wú qíng。 dàn shì, zhuàng yǒng men bìng méi yòu bēi guān shī wàng, xiāo jí tuí fèi, yě méi yòu yīn cǐ tān shēng pà sǐ, wèi suō bù qián。 bù cuò, fán rén de shēng jù jiù xiàng shù yè yī yàng, qiū fēng yī qǐ, lái lái luò dì, yī qù bù fǎn。 dàn shì, cháng ruò
    …… yī rì
     chūn fēng fú qǐ, zhī gān biàn huì chōu fā róng mì de xīn lǜ。
     rén tóng cǐ lǐ, xīn de yī dài jué qǐ, lǎo de yī dài sǐ qù。( 6·147 héng 49)
     rén shēng chōng mǎn shēng jī, chōng mǎn chuàng jiàn gōng yè de xī wàng hé xǐ yuè。 shì dài de gēngtì gěi jiā zú dài lái de bù shì bēi shēng yàn shì de qíng xù, bù shì yuàn tiān yóu rén de bēi tàn, bù shì wú suǒ zuò wéi hé mò mò wú wén, ér shì qiāng mǎ chuàng lì de bà yè, hàn xuè jiāo zhù de yīng míng, shì dài xiāng chuán de měi tán。 zhàn yǒng men bù yàn qí fán dì duì zhe dí rén dà duàn dì xuān jiǎng zì jǐ de zōng pǔ, cóng zhōng xiǎng shòu zuò wéi yīng xióng hòu dài de guāng róng hé jiāo 'ào。 zhàn zhēng chéng rán wú qíng, sǐ wáng què shí kě pà, dàn zhàn shì de zé zhí shì xiào mìng jiāng chǎng, zhàn shì de róng yù shì pīn shā lǔ lüè, zhàn shì de xǐ yuè shì qiān gǔ liú fāng:
     wǒ de péng yǒu 'ā, yào shì nǐ wǒ néng cóng zhè chǎng zhàn dǒu zhōng shēng hái,
     dé yǐ cháng shēng bù sǐ, jù lǎo kàng shuāi, yǔ tiān dì tóng cún,
     wǒ jiù zài yě bù huì zhàn zài qián pái lǐ zhàn dǒu,
     yě bù huì zài yào nǐ chōng xiàng zhàn chǎng, rén men zhēng dé róng yù de dì fāng。
     dàn xiàn zài, sǐ de jīng líng zhèng 'āi zhàn zài wǒ men shēn biān,
     shù qiān yīn yǐng, shuí yě táo shēng bù dé, duǒ bù guò tā de jī dǎ héng héng
     suǒ yǐ, ràng wǒ men chōng shàng qián qù, yào me wéi zì jǐ zhēng dé róng guāng, yào me bǎ tā
     gǒng shǒu ràng gěi dí rén!( 12·322 héng 28) zài xiàng duì shǒu tiǎo zhàn shí, hè kè tuō 'ěr gāo shēng hǎn dào, cháng ruò ràng tā dé shǒu, tā jiāng bǎ yí tǐ jiāo hái cháng fā de 'ā kāi yà rén, shǐ tā men dé yǐ lǐ zàng sǐ zhě, duī fén zhù mù, zài kào hǎi de dì fāng。 tā yù yán:
     jiāng lái, yòu rén lù jīng cǐ dì, jià zhe dài zuò bǎn de hǎi chuán,
     pò làng zài jiǔ lán sè de yáng miàn, tiào jiàn zhè gè tǔ duī, biàn huì chū yán gǎn tàn:
    “ nà lǐ mái zhe yī gè zhàn sǐ jiāng chǎng de gǔ rén,
     yī wèi yǒng gǎn de zhuàng shì, dǎo sǐ zài guāng róng de hè kè tuō 'ěr shǒu xià。”
     jiāng lái, yòu rén huì rú cǐ shuō gào, ér wǒ de róng yù jiāng yǔ shì cháng cún。
    ( 7·87 héng 91)  jīn shēng cōng hū, suǒ yǐ zài suǒ bì zhēng; shēng mìng kě guì, suǒ yǐ bì xū zhēn xī。 cái fù kě yǐ tōng guò lüè jié huò qǔ, dàn rén de hún xī, yī jīng huá chū chǐ xì, jiù wú fǎ“ zài yòng bào jié lüè huí, yě bù néng tōng guò yì jiǎ fù guī”。 ā jī liú sī nìngkě zuò yī gè nóng rén de bāng gōng, yě bù yuàn dāng míng fǔ lǐ guǐ hún de wáng zhě(《 ào dé sài》 12·489 héng 21)。 rán 'ér, duì shēng mìng de zhì 'ài, méi yòu shǐ yīng xióng chéng wéi shēng mìng de nú pú héng héng chú kāi shén de yīn sù, tā men shǐ zhōng shì tā de zhù rén。 míng zhī mìng yùn xiǎn 'è, dàn què jù bù xiàng tā qū fú; míng zhī zhēng zhàn jiān nán, dàn jí shǐ dǎ dào tóu pò xuè liú, yě yào pīn gè nǐ sǐ wǒ huó。 huó yào huó dé yáng méi tù qì, sǐ yào sǐde míng míng bái bái。 zài hēi wù mí màn de zhàn chǎng shàng, tè lā méng zhī zǐ 'āi 'ā sī hǎn chū liǎo bēi fèn de hūháo:
     ò, fù qīn zhòu sī, bǎ 'ā kāi yà rén de 'ér zǐ men lā chū mí wù bā!
     ràng yáng guāng zhào xiè, shǐ wǒ men chóngjiàn tiān rì! bǎ wǒ men shā sǐ bā,
     shā sǐ zài càn làn de rì guāng lǐ, rú guǒ cǐ shí cǐ kè, huǐ miè wǒ men néng shǐ nǐ huān yuè!
    ( 17·645 héng 47)  yòng yòu xiàn de shēng mìng kàng jù wú xiàn de kùn kǔ hé mó nán, zài duǎn cù de yī shēng zhōng shǐ shēng mìng zuì dà xiàn duódì huò qǔ hé zhǎn xiàn zì shēn de jià zhí, shǐ tā zài kàng zhēng de zuì chì liè de rè diǎn shàng shǎn shuò chū yǒng lì、 zhì huì hé jìn qǔ de guāng huá。 zhè biàn shì hé mǎ de yǒng shì men de rén shēng, fán rén shì tú chōng pò 'ér yòu wú fǎ chōng pò zì shēn de jú xiàn de bēi zhuàng( lìng jiàn“ yīng xióng” jié)。 hěn míng xiǎn, zhè shì rén shēng de bēi jù, yě shì rén shēng de zì háo。 suī rán zhè yī zhù tí zài hòu shì de bēi jù zuò jiā、 yóu qí shì suǒ fú kè lè sī de zuò pǐn zhōng dé dào liǎo lín lí jìn zhì de fā huī héng héng wǒ men bù yào wàng jì, shì hé mǎ hé tā de《 yī lì yà tè》 shǒu xiān jiào wǒ men kàn dào rén shēng de bēi kǔ, rén shēng de yīng liè, rén shēng de miǎo xiǎo hé wěi dà。
  
                    yīng xióng
  
     àn zhào hé mǎ de guān diǎn, yīng xióng huò zhuàng shì shì shén de hòu yì, tiān zhī jiāo zǐ, fán rén zhōng de chǒng 'ér。 yīng xióng men jù bèi fán rén suǒ xiàn mù de yī qiē, shì 'ā kāi yà rén zhōng de jùn jié( aristeespanachaion)。 tā men chū shēn gāo guì, rén réndōu yòu xiǎn hè de mén dì, kě zī kuā yào de jiā zú, zuò bà yī fāng, wáng tǒng tiān xià。 tā men xiàngmào jùn měi, yí biǎo táng táng, hè lì jī qún zài yún yún zhòng shēng zhī zhōng。 ā jī liú sī shì nán xìng měi de diǎn fàn(《 ào dé sài》 11·470)。 qián wǎng shú qǔ 'ér zǐ yí tǐ de pǔ lǐ 'ā mó sī, zài“ mǎn zú liǎo chī hē de yù wàng hòu”, níng mù 'ā jī liú sī,
     jīng mù tā de jùn měi, gāo dà tǐng bá de shēn qū, jiù xiàng
     shén míng yī bān……( 24·630 héng 31)  zài tè luò yī chéng lóu shàng, pǔ lǐ 'ā mó sī wàng zhe 'ā gā mén nóng de xióng zī, kāi kǒu wèn dào( duì hǎi lún):
     zǒu jìn xiē, gào sù wǒ tā de míng zì, nà gè wěi 'àn de yǒng shì,
     tā shì shuí, nà wèi qiáng jiàn、 zhuàng shí de 'ā kāi yà rén?
     wǒ cóng wèi jiàn guò rú cǐ chū lèi bá cuì de rén wù,
     zhè gǔ gāo háo de qì pài héng héng cǐ rén bì shì yī wèi wáng guì!( 3·166 héng 70)  yīng xióng 'é dǐ xiū sī, suī shuō bǐ 'ā gā mén nóng 'ǎi liǎo yī tóu, dàn tā de jiān bǎng hé xiōng bèi què cháng dé gèng wéi kuān hòu( 3·193 héng 94)。
     yīng xióng men bǎng kuò yāo yuán, lì dà rú niú。 āi 'ā sī de zhàn dùn dà dé xiàng yī miàn wéi qiáng, ér 'ā jī liú sī“ jǐn píng yī jǐ zhī lì, jí kě bǎ tā tǒng rù jiǎn kǒng” de chā gàng, xū yào sān gè 'ā kāi yà rén fāng néng shuān lǒng hé lā kāi( 24·454 héng 56)。 shuò dà de shí yán, dāng jīn zhī rén, jí biàn zhàn chū liǎng gè, yě mò tā nài hé, ér tú diū sī zhī zǐ dí 'é mò dé sī què jǐn píng yī jǐ zhī lì, qīng sōng dì bǎ tā gāo jǔ guò tóu( 5·303- 4)。 hěn zì rán, zài hé mǎ kàn lái, shén de xuè mài, gāo guì de wáng jiā zǐ dì, yào shì méi yòu guò rén de yǒng lì, nà shì huāng táng de。 yīng xióng shì lì liàng de xiàng zhēng。
     jìn guǎn zhàn zhēng shì“ kě pà de”、“ kě hèn de”、“ tú rén de”, zhuàng shì men què shì zhàn rú mìng,“ kě wàng zhe” chōng zhàn shā dí, pǐn wèi“ zhàn dǒu de xǐ yuè”。 yǒng gǎn zhàn dǒu shì zǔ chuán de gǔ xùn。 gé láo sī duì qiū 'é mò dé sī rǎng dào: jiā fù
     yào wǒ yīng yǒng zuò zhàn, bǐ shuídōu yǒng gǎn, yǐ qiú chū rén tóu dì,
     bù zhì rǔ méi wǒ de qián bèi, shēngzhǎng zài 'è fú lā
     hé liáo kuò de lǔ jī yà de zuì yǒng gǎn de rén。( 6·208 héng 10) tā men bù jǐn shì zhàn, ér qiě shàn zhàn héng héng tiān dǐ xià nǎ yòu yīng xióng bù huì dǎ zhàng de dào lǐ? miàn duì 'āi 'ā sī de wēi xié, hè kè tuō 'ěr( zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, tā hái bù shì chāo yī liú de zhàn jiāng) zhēn fēng xiāng duì, kāi kǒu zuò liǎo yī fān“ zì wǒ jiè shào”:
     wǒ qǐng shú gé zhàn de mén dào, shā rén shì wǒ jīng tōng de jué huó。
     wǒ zhī dào rú hé zuǒ dǐ yòu dǎng, yòng niú pí jiān rèn de
     zhàn dùn, cǐ nǎi fáng wèi de gāo zhāo。
     wǒ zhī dào rú hé jià zhe kuài mǎ, shā rén fēi páo de chē zhèn;
     wǒ zhī dào rú hé gōng zhàn, dàng kāi zhàn shén tòu zhe shā qì de wǔ bù。( 7·237 héng 41)  zhuàng shì men bù jǐn shàn shǐ qiāng máo, ér qiě néng yòng kǒu shé。 hé mǎ shǐ shī zhōng de yīng xióng shì kǒu cái chū zhòng de biàn zhě, xíng dòng guǒ gǎn de yǒng shì( 9·443, lìng jiàn 2·273, 18·105 héng 6, 18·252)。 yǒng měng háo qiáng, xióng biàn tāo tāo, fāng wéi yīng xióng běn sè, fán rén de jiē mó。 huì chǎng, rú tóng zhàn chǎng yī yàng, shì rén men“ zhēng dé róng yù de dì fāng”( 1·490)。 zuò wéi 'ā jī liú sī de sī rén jiào shī, fú yī ní kè sī fù zé jiào shòu biàn shuō de jì qiǎo huò běn lǐng, yīn wéi xióng biàn“ shǐ rén chū lèi bá cuì”。 néng móu shàn biàn de 'é dǐ xiū sī zhī suǒ yǐ shòu dào quán jūn de 'ài dài, chú liǎo zuò zhàn yǒng gǎn hé shòu dào yǎ diǎn nà de tè bié guān zhào wài, chū zhòng de biàn cái yì shì yī gè bù kě hū lüè de yuán yīn。 tè luò yī zhì zhě 'ān tè nuò 'ěr zàn shǎng mò nài láo sī de biǎo shù, rèn wéi tā yòng cí jīng liàn, chū yán xùn jié, dàn què gèng wéi zàn shǎng 'é dǐ xiū sī de wěn dǔ, zàn mù tā de cí fēng hé wú yǔ lún bǐ de huà biàn:
     dàn shì, dāng hóng liàng de shēng yīn chōng chū tā de dān tián, cí jù xiàng dōng tiān de
     xuě piàn yī yàng fēn fēn yáng yáng dì piāo lái shí, fán rén zhōng jiù bù huì yòu tā de duì shǒu;
     shuí yě bù néng pǐ dí 'é dǐ xiū sī de kǒu cái!( 3·221 héng 23)  wén wǔ shuāng quán de nài sī tuō 'ěr, suī shuō nián jì qīng qīng( zài tā nián qīng shí dài), què yǐ néng zhēng zhàn lǔ lüè, huān yuè fù qīn de xīn xiōng( 11·682 héng 84); yòng tā de rú huáng zhī shé, dà jiāng bēn shuǐ bān de biàn cái, zhēng dé tóng liáo men de mù 'ài, shǐ tā men qīng tīng tā de yì jiàn, zūn zhòng tā de yán lùn( 1·273)。 nián qīng de dí 'é mò dé sī jì shì zhàn chǎng shàng de zhù jiāng, yòu shì huì chǎng shàng de jīng yīng, tā de cái huá bó dé liǎo lǎo yīng xióng nài sī tuō 'ěr de chēng zàn:
     tú diū sī zhī zǐ, lùn zhàn dǒu, nǐ yǒngguàn quán jūn;
     lùn móu biàn, nǐ yì shì tóng líng rén zhōng de jiǎo jié。
     ā kāi yà rén zhōng, shuí yě bù néng qīng shì nǐ de yì jiàn,
     fǎn bó nǐ de yán lùn……
    …… nǐ, miàn duì 'ā 'ěr jí wéi rén de
     wáng zhě, shuō huà tóu tóu shì dào, tiáo lǐ fēn míng。( 9·53 héng 59)  bù guò, dí 'é mò dé sī de biàn cái hái méi yòu zhēn dá dēng fēng zào jí de shuǐ píng, yīn wéi tā hái nián qīng héng héng lùn nián líng, kě zuò nài sī tuō 'ěr de 'ér zǐ,“ zuì xiǎo de 'ér zǐ”。
     yīng xióng shì jiè de jià zhí guān de zhōng xīn nèi róng shì time( róng yù、 shēng yù、 miàn zǐ)。 tā men bǎ gè rén de róng yù hé zūn yán kàn zuò shì bǐ shēng mìng gèng zhòng yào, yīn 'ér shì gèng kě guì de dōng xī。 sǔn hài zhuàng shì de time, duó zǒu yīnggāi shǔ yú tā de suǒ yòu, yì wèi zhe mò dà de cì jī hé mào fàn。 wéi hù zì jǐ de time yì jí wéi hù zì jǐ de rén gé、 jiā zú de míng yù hé rén jì guān xì de gōng zhèng, jí dike。 xiǎn rán, rú guǒ fā zhǎn bù dāng, wù rù qí tú, time shì bǎ yīng xióng tuī xiàng at6 hé hubris( jiàn xià wén) de yī gè zhòng yào de jià zhí guān fāng miàn de yīn sù。 yǒng lì hé biàn cái shì yīng xióng shǒu zhōng de liǎng zhǒng wǔ qì; tōng guò tā men, zhuàng tǔ wéi zì jǐ hé jiā zú zhēng dé tǔ dì、 cái fù hé zūn róng, wéi chí、 gǒng gù hé hàn wèi yǐ yòu de shè huì dì wèi、 fēn pèi gé jú hé jì dé lì yì。
     wú yōng zhì yí, yīng xióng bù shì wán rén de tóng yì cí。 tā men( zhì shǎo tā men zhōng de xǔ duō rén) kùn yú rén shēng de jú xiàn, shòu yù niàn de zhī pèi hé time de cuī jī, yòu zhe bǐng xìng huò xìng gé shàng de ruò diǎn huò quē diǎn。 yóu yú 'ā gā mén nóng de kuáng bào, duó zǒu 'ā jī liú sī de nǚ bàn, cóng 'ér dǎo zhì zhè wèi lián jūn zhōng zuì jié chū de zhuàng yǒng xié nù bà zhàn, shǐ xī là rén zāo shòu cǎn zhòng de shāng wáng。 dāng pà lā sī · yǎ diǎn nà cóng tiān shàng xià fán, shì tú zǔ zhǐ 'ā jī liú sī hé 'ā gā mén nóng huǒ bìng shí, péi liú sī zhī zǐ kāi kǒu zé wèn dào:
     dài 'āi jí sī de zhòu sī de hái zǐ, wèihé xiàn shí jiàng lín? xiǎng kàn kàn
     ā tè róu sī zhī zǐ, kàn kàn 'ā gā mén nóng de jiāo héng bá hù( hubris) má?
    ( l·202- 3)  nài sī tuō 'ěr pī píng 'ā gā mén nóng bèi gāo 'ào hé kuáng nù méng zhù liǎo shuāng yǎn, qū rǔ liǎo quán jūn zuì hǎo de zhàn yǒng; ā gā mén nóng jiē shòu tā de zhǐ zé, chéng rèn“ wǒ shì fēng liǎo…… xiā liǎo yǎn, tīng rèn 'è nù de qū shǐ”( 9·116 héng 19), bìng yuàn ná chū fēng hòu de cháng lǐ, mí bǔ guò shī。 tā gǎn tàn dào, shì kè luó nuò sī zhī zǐ bǎ tā tuī rù liǎo kuáng máng( ate) de xiàn jǐng( 9·18)。 tóng yàng, ā jī liú sī de bēi jù yě yòu tā zì shēn fāng miàn de yuán yīn。 tā gù zhí、 gāng bì、 kuáng mán, lián shēn biān zuì qīn mì de bàn yǒu duì tā yì bù wú wēi yán, shuō tā“ gāng liè、 cū bào, shèn zhì kě duì yī gè wú gū zhī rén dòng nù fā huǒ”( 11·654)。“ cǐ rén quán rán bù gù lǐ miàn” héng héng 'ā bō luó mà dào héng héng“ xīn xiōng kuáng mán, piān wán zhíniù, xiàng yī tóu shī zǐ, chén nì yú zì jǐ de yǒng lì hé gāo 'ào”( 24·40 héng 42)。 miàn duì 'ā jī liú sī chóngxīn chū zhàn de yán kù jú miàn, tóu nǎo lěng jìng de pǔ lǔ dá mǎ sī quàn shuō hè kè tuō 'ěr tuì bīng chéng bǎo, yǐ biàn zài chéng nèi kàng jī 'ā kāi yà rén de jìn gōng, dàn hè kè tuō 'ěr bù dàn bù tīng zhōng gào, fǎn 'ér“ è hěn hěn dì dīng zhe tā”, bǎ tā mà dé gǒu xuè pēn tóu。 hè kè tuō 'ěr de mánhèng hé bào nüè zào chéng liǎo yán zhòng de hòu guǒ; tā zàng huǐ liǎo jūn duì de qián chéng, duàn sòng liǎo zì jǐ de xìng mìng。
  
                    shén
  
     hé mǎ miáo shù liǎo yī gè hàodòu de、 shàn yú cí lìng 'ér bù huì huò hěn shǎo jìn hángdào dé shuō jiào de shén de qún tǐ。 hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ de zhòng shén, bù shì pǔ dù zhòng shēng de pú sà, yě bù shì zuò wéi dào dé jiē mó de jī dū, yì bù shì zuò wéi fán rén de jīng shén jì tuō de mù hǎn mò dé。 gǔ xī là shī rén yǐ rén de xíng xiàng、 xìng qíng、 xīn tài hé xíng wéi fāng shì wéi yuán xíng, chuàng zào huò sù zào liǎo yī gè shén de qún tǐ。 zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, shén men 'àn rén de xīn lǐ dòng jī sī kǎo hé xíng dòng, yòu zhe rén de qī qíng liù yù, yán yòng rén de shè qún tè diǎn, rén de jiāo jì mó shì。 shén men fēn xiǎng rén de ruò diǎn hé dào dé fāng miàn de bù wán shàn héng héng shén shì bù sǐ de fán rén。 zài nà gè shí dài, shén hé rén de jiāo wǎng shì zhí jiē 'ér jù tǐ de。 shén de cānyù guàn chuānzhuó zhěng bù《 yī lì yà tè》 de jìn chéng。 shén kě yǐ zài tā huò tā xū yào de rèn hé shí hòu( chú fēi shòu dào zhòu sī de zǔ zhǐ) xià dào fán jiān, xún zhǎo rèn hé yī gè yào zhǎo de fán rén, tán lùn rèn hé xiǎng yào tán lùn de shì qíng。 zuò wéi yī zhǒng gōu tōng de fāng shì, fán rén kě yǐ tōng guò qí dǎo qiú dé shén de bāng zhù。
     hé fán rén yī yàng, shén yǐ jiā tíng huò jiā zú de xíng shì cún zài, ér zhòu sī shì shén jiè de jiāzhǎng huò lǚ cháng。 shén jiè de quán wēi shèn zhì bǐ rén jiān gèng míng xiǎn dì qǔ jué yú dān chún de、 bù jiā yǎn shì de lì huò tǐ lì。 píng jiè wú yǔ lún bǐ de shén lì, zhòu sī tuī fān liǎo fù qīn kè luó nuò sī de tǒng zhì, duó dé shén jiè de wáng wèi。 é lín bō sī zhòng shén zhōng shuí yě bù gǎn hé tā kàng héng, mèng xiǎng hé tā zhēng bà, yīn wéi zhòu sī de yǒng lì yuǎn fēi qí tā zhū shén suǒ néng qǐ jí。 tā shòu jǐng gào duō guǎn xián shì de hè lā, yòng cí xiāng dāng cū bào、 yán lì:
     bì shàng nǐ de zuǐ, jìng jìng dì zuò dào yī biān qù。 àn wǒ shuō de bàn héng héng
     fǒu zé, dāng wǒ zǒu guò qù, duì nǐ shuǎi kāi wǒ de shuāng bì, zhǎn shì bù kě dǐ yù de
     shén lì shí,
     é lín bō sī shān shàng de zhòng shén, jiù shì quán bù chū dòng, yě bāng bù liǎo nǐ de máng!
    ( 1·565 héng 67)
     zhè shì gè chì luǒ luǒ de lì de shì jiè。 dāng rán, zhòu sī bù shì gè yòu yǒng wú móu de mǎng hàn。 tā shì“ gōng yú xīn jì de” kè luó nuò sī de 'ér zǐ, yǐ“ néng móu shàn biàn” zhù chēng。 é lín bō sī zhòng shén fēn zuò liǎng pài, yī pài zhī chí 'ā kāi yà rén, yǐ hè lā hé yǎ diǎn nà wéi gǔgàn; lìng yī pài bāng zhù tè luò yī rén, yǐ 'ā bō luó hé 'āi 'ā sī wéi hé xīn。 zhòu sī shí 'ér piān tǎn zhè yī fāng, shí 'ér fàng zòng nà yī fāng, cóng zhōng xiǎng shòu quán shì dài lái de xǐ yuè。 tā céng yán lì jǐng gào hè lā, yě céng yī běn zhèng jīng dì wēi xié bō sài dōng, yǎn rán yī fù líng jià yú liǎng pài zhī shàng de shén zhù múyàng。 rán 'ér, tā cóng lái bù xiǎng rèn zhēn jiě jué liǎng pài zhī jiān de zhēng duān。 tā xǐ huān yuǎn lí zhòng shén, jìng jìng dì zuò zài 'é lín bō sī huò yī dá de fēng jǐ, yǐ cǐ biǎo shì zì jǐ de dú tè hé chāo qún héng héng bù shì má, yǔ zhòu de gū zhù, jì bù tóng wū yú fán rén, yě bù hé liú yú tā suǒ tǒng guǎn de shén qún。“ tā yuǎn yuǎn dì zuò zài nà lǐ, jì bù guān xīn wǒ men, yě bù bǎ wǒ men fàng zài yǎn lǐ”( 15·105 héng 6)。 xīng zhì shàng lái shí, tā shèn zhì kě yǐ jiù zhe mǒu jiàn shì yóu, zhǐ lìng shén jiè de liǎng pài dà dǎ chū shǒu, jiǎo gè tiān hūn dì 'àn, yú yuè tā de xīn huái( 20·22 héng 25)。 zhè, huò xǔ jiù shì shén jiè de zhèng zhì, ér《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng de zhòu sī shì gè dǒng dé rú hé yùn yòng quán shù hé shàn gǎo zhèng zhì píng héng de hángjiā。
     tóng xìng fú de shén zhī xiāng bǐ, fán rén shì“ kě lián de” huò“ kě bēi de”。 rén de yī gè chéng shì huà yòng yǔ shì deiloisibrotoisi( bēi kǔ de zhòng shēng)。 shén de shēng huó, yóu yú chāo yuè liǎo sǐ de jìn xiàn, yīn 'ér jì méi yòu rén shēng de jiān nán, yě quē shǎo rén shēng de yán sù hé hòu zhòng。 àn zhào shī rén de guān diǎn, shén men lǐ suǒ dāng rán dì yōng yòu jǐ rén xiǎng yào 'ér yòu bù nà me róng yì dé huò de dōng xī, bìng bǎ tā men zèng sòng gěi kě lián de、 zài tǐ lì、 xīn lì hé zhì lì fāng miàn dū shòu dào jí dà jú xiàn de fán rén。 duì zhè xiē bù xìng de cāng shēng, shén shì yǒng lì、 zhì huì hé quán wēi de cì zào zhě。 ā jī liú sī píng zhe shén de cì zhù 'ér yǒngguàn qún xióng, ā gā mén nóng zé píng jiè shén fù de quán zhàng dé yǐ wáng tǒng 'ā 'ěr jí wéi rén。 rú guǒ shuō mǒu rén tè bié cōng míng, nà shì yīn wéi shén gěi liǎo tā zhì huì; xiāng fǎn, cháng ruò yòu rén gān chū shǎ shì, nà jiù kě néng shì yīn wéi shén men duó zǒu liǎo tā de ruì zhì。 shén gěi liǎo hè 'ěr kǎ sī bǔ zhàn de qí shù( 1·71), gěi liǎo fěi ruì kè luò sī zhì zuò de jué yì( 5·59 héng 61), shǐ fěi mí 'é sī huò dé chàng shī de líng gǎn(《 ào dé sài》 22·347)。 hǎo liè shǒu de jì yì dé zhī yú 'ā 'ěr tè mí sī de jiào huì, hǎo shè shǒu de qiáng gōng dé zhī yú 'ā bō luó de kuì zèng。
     hé mǎ de shǐ shī shì jiè lǐ bù cún zài“ máng mù”、“ ǒu rán” huò hé shì tài de zhèng cháng jí yī bān zhuàng tài duì bǐ 'ér yán de“ ǒu fā xiàn xiàng”。 zì rán jiè hé rén shì jiān de yī qiē shì duān hé xiàn xiàng, rú guǒ bù shì rén wéi de, biàn shì shén de shǒu bǐ。 léi diàn shì zhòu sī sòng lái de, dì zhèn shì bō sài dōng zhì dǎo de, xìng 'ài shì 'ā fú luó dǐ tè qū sǒng de。《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ méi yòu shénme bù néng jiě shì de shì qíng。 duì rén wù zuò chū de zhòng dà jué dìng, hé mǎ yī bān cǎi yòng“ shuāngchóng dòng yīn” de jiě fǎ( cóng zhōng wǒ men yì kě kàn dào rén de zuò yòng; zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, rén, jìn guǎn duō zāi duō nán, dàn jué bù shì wú zú qīng zhòng de)。 ā jī liú sī zuò chū duó qǔ 'ā jī liú sī nǚ bàn de jué dìng, yī zé yīn wéi zì jǐ shēng xìng gāng mán, èr zé yě yīn wéi shòu dào shén lì de qū shǐ( 19·86 héng 90)。 tóng yàng, yǎ diǎn nà de quàn zǔ hé 'ā jī liú sī de jué zé shǐ tā bì miǎn liǎo hé 'ā gā mén nóng de huǒ bìng( 1·188 héng 218)。 zài dì jiǔ juàn lǐ, dí 'é mò dé sī yù yán 'ā jī liú sī jiāng chóngfǎn zhàn chǎng, shòu( tā zì jǐ) xīn líng de qū shǐ, shén míng de cuī dū( 703)。 duì yī xiē zhòng dà zhàn shì( hé sài shì) de chǔlǐ, hé mǎ yì cháng cháng yán yòng zhè yī fāng fǎ。 pà tè luó kè luò sī sǐ yú shén lì hé fán rén zhàn lì de hùn hé; tóng yàng, hè kè tuō 'ěr de sǐ wáng guī zhī yú 'ā jī liú sī de xiāo yǒng hé yǎ diǎn nà de bāng máng。
     àn zhào hé mǎ de shén xué guān, chú liǎo shén yǐ wài, rén shēng hái shòu dào lìng yī zhǒng chāo zì rán de lì liàng, jí mìng yùn huò mìng xiàn( moira, aisa) de zhì yuē hé bǎi bù。 duì mìng yùn, hé mǎ yī bān bù zuò rén gé huà de miáo shù; cǐ wài, moira yì méi yòu jiā pǔ, bù xiàng yī bān shén zhī hé shén líng nà yàng, kě yǐ zhǎo chū zǔ zōng sān dài。 Moira de lì liàng zhù yào zài yú xiàn dìng rén shēng de cháng dù huò xiàn dù; fán rén zài chū shēng de nà yī kè jí yǐ dài shàng sǐ wáng de yīn yǐng( 20·127 héng 28, 23·78 héng 79, 24·209 héng 10)。 fán rén yī bān bù néng tōng guò qí dǎo jiě tuō mìng yùn de shù fù。 zhì shǎo cóng lǐ lùn shàng lái shuō, mìng yùn shì kě yǐ zài yī dìng chéng dù shàng bèi chōng pò huò chāo yuè de。 zài dì 'èr shí juàn lǐ, zhòu sī duì zhòng shén shuō dào, xié zhe yóu pà tè luó kè luò sī zhī sǐ yǐn fā de bào nù, ā jī liú sī kě néng chōng pò mìng yùn de zhì yuē, gōng pò chéng bǎo( 29 héng 30)。 zuò wéi“ shén hé rén de fù qīn”, wú suǒ bù néng suí zhòu sī zì rán wò yòu chōng pò mìng yùn de shén lì。 zài 'ài zǐ sà 'ěr péi dōng sǐ qián, zhòu sī céng kǎo lǜ bǎ tā jiù lí zhàn chǎng, zhǐ shì yīn wéi zāo dào hè lā de qiáng liè fǎn duì 'ér zuò bà:
     nǐ dǎ suàn bǎ tā jiù chū bēi cǎn de sǐ wáng, yī gè fán rén,
     yī gè mìng lǐ zhù dìng yào sǐ de fán rén?
     zuò qù bā, zhòu sī, dàn wǒ děng zhòng shén jué bù huì yī zhì zàn tóng。( 16·441 héng 43) kě jiàn, rú guǒ yuàn yì, zhòu sī kě yǐ jiù chū sà 'ěr péi dōng, dàn zhè me zuò kě néng huì yǐn qǐ zhòng shén de fǎn gǎn, dài chū yī xì liè lián suǒ fǎn yìng, pò huài tiān tǐ de hé xié, chǎn shēng nán yǐ yù qī de jiēguǒ。
  
                  chéng bǎo jí bīng mín
  
     hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ de hé xīn shè qū dān wèi shì chéng bǎo huò chéng zhèn( polis, astu, Ptoliethron)。 Polis jì shì bīng mín de jí huì dì diǎn, yòu shì kàng yù dí rén jìn fàn de bǎo lěi; jì shì shè huì huó dòng de zhōng xīn, yòu shì jìn xíng mào yì hé jǔ xíng zōng jiào yí shì de chǎng suǒ。 ā jī liú sī de zhàn dùn shàng zhù zhe liǎng zuò chéng shì, jí zhōng fǎn yìng liǎo bīng mín men zài zhàn zhēng jí hé píng shí qī de liǎng zhǒng bù tóng de shēng huó jǐng zhuàng。 chéng bǎo de wài wéi yòu yī piàn nóng yě huò xiāng cūn dì qū, jí agros huò erga; chéng shì hé xiāng cūn yī qǐ zǔ chéng“ qū yù” huò“ dì yù”( demos, gaia)。 guǎng yì shàng de polis wǎng wǎng bāo kuò chéng zhèn、 jiāo qū hé chéng lǐ chéng wài de rén mín héng héng yóu cǐ zǔ chéng hé mǎ shǐ shī zhōng de yī gè jī běn de zhèng zhì shí tǐ。
     chéng bǎo de tǒng zhì zhě shì basileus( guó wáng、 wáng zhě); mǒu xiē wáng zhě huò tǒng zhì zhě( rú 'ā gā mén nóng děng) yōng yòu yī gè yǐ shàng de chéng zhèn, ér yǐ wáng zhě jū zhù de chéng bǎo wéi zhèng zhì、 jūn shì hé wén huà de zhōng xīn。 zhàn shí, basileus shì běn bù bīng mín de tǒng shuài, xià shè ruò gān fēn duì, yóu tóu lǐng men guǎn dài( 1·171 héng 72)。 zhòng yào de shè huì hángdāng bāo kuò xìn shǐ、 jì sī děng。 zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, xiān zhī、 yī zhě、 mù jiàng hèshī rén tóng shǔ“ gōng zuò zhě”( demiourgoi) de fàn chóu(《 ào dé sài》 17·383 héng 85), jí yòng zì jǐ de shǒu yì huò běn lǐng wèimín zhòng fú wù de rén。 hé mǎ yòng laos、 laoi、 plethus、 demos biǎo shì yī bān mín zhòng( huò bīng dīng), jí lái zì chéng bǎo de“ gōng mín”。 lái zì wài bāng de dìng jū zhě jiào metanastes huò xeinos( kè mín)。 wú yè yóu mín( thetes) sì hū yì shǔ zì yóu rén jiē céng, méi yòu zì jǐ de tǔ dì, yǐ bāng gōng wéi shēng。 cǐ wài, zài yī gè yǐ jūn shì mín zhù zhì wéi tè zhēng de gǔ dài shè huì lǐ, dāng rán bù huì méi yòu nú lì( dmoes, dmoai)。 rú tóng fēn dé de qí tā zhàn lǐ( zhàn lì pǐn) yī yàng, nú lì yī bān guī shǔ gè rén suǒ yòu。
  
                wáng zhě、 biàn yì huì、 jí huì
  
     zuò wéi guì zú de zǐ dì hé dài biǎo, wáng zhě shì chéng bāng huò shǔ dì nèi de zuì gāo jūn zhèng shǒu cháng。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, ā gā mén nóng yǐ xī là lián jūn tǒng shuài de shēn fèn xióng jū zhòng wáng zhī shàng, bǐ hòu zhě gèng jù jué cè de quán wēi。“ nǐ tǒng lǐng zhe hào hào dàng dàng de dà jūn” héng héng nài sī tuō 'ěr shuō dào héng héng“ zhòu sī bǎ wáng zhàng jiāo zài nǐ de shǒu lǐ, shǐ nǐ yòu liǎo jué duàn de quán lì, dé yǐ xùn dǎo huī xià de bīng dīng”( 998 héng 99)。 dí 'é mò dé sī chéng rèn, ā gā mén nóng yōng yòu“ bié rén bù kě qǐ jí de zūn róng”( 9·37)。 nài sī tuō 'ěr quàn wèi shèng nù zhōng de 'ā jī liú sī bù yào hé 'ā gā mén nóng zhēng chǎo,“ zài róng yù de zhàn yòu shàng, bié rén dé bù dào tā de fèn zǐ”( 1·278)。 é dǐ xiū sī gèng shì zhí jié liǎo dāng dì jǐng gào huáng huáng bēn páo de bīng yǒng: ā kāi yà rén bù néng gè gèdōu shì wáng zhě,“ wáng zhě zhòng duō bù shì yī jiàn hǎo shì héng héng zhè lǐ zhǐ yīngyǒu yī gè tǒng zhì zhě, yī gè dà wáng”( 2·203 héng 5)。 wáng zhě yōng yòu shàng hǎo de fèn dì( temenos), xiǎng yòu shuài xiān tiǎo qǔ zhàn lǐ( geraas) de tè quán, jiē shòu zhǔmín de lǐ wù hé gòng fèng。 zài yàn huì shàng, tā men xiǎng zuò zūn wèi, chī yòng tè fèn de ròu shí, hē yǐn mǎn bēi de chún jiǔ。 zuò wéi duì quán lì de píng héng, wáng zhě yòu yì wù yàn qǐng gòng shì de shǒu lǐng hé quán guì。 zài dì jiǔ juàn lǐ, nài sī tuō 'ěr héng héng zài zuò guò yī fān míng zhì de quàn yì hòu héng héng duì 'ā gā mén nóng shuō dào: xiàn zài
     yìng yóu nǐ, ā gā mén nóng, zuò wéi zuì gāo guì de wáng zhě, xíng shǐ tǒng shuài de zhí quán。
     bǎi kāi yàn xí, zhāo dài gè wèi shǒu lǐng; zhè shì nǐ de yì wù, hé nǐ de
     shēn fèn xiāng fú。……( 9·69 héng 71)
     hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ de wáng zhě jìn guǎn gāng 'ào bù jī、 cū mǎng kuáng liè, dàn què bù shì diǎn xíng yì yì shàng de bào jūn。 shì shí shàng, zài zhèng zhì、 sī fǎ, shèn zhì zài jūn shì fāng miàn, zuì gāo tǒng shuài de quán lì dū shòu dào biàn yì huì( Boulegeronton) de chè zhǒu。 yùhuì de gerontes( shǒu lǐng) tōng cháng běn shēn jí shì wáng zhě héng héng zhàn chǎng shàng, tā men shì tǒng bīng de jiàngshuài。 tā men xiǎng yòu hěn gāo de wēi wàng, yán xíng jǔ zú qīng zhòng。 ā gā mén nóng bì xū rèn zhēn qīng tīng tā men de yì jiàn, àn zuì hǎo de bàn fǎ xíng shì( 9·74 héng 75)。
     biàn yì huì shàng shāng tǎo guò de shì qíng, rú guǒ shì guān zhòng dà, hái yào tí jiāo dà huì huò jí huì( agore huò agora) de tǎo lùn hé tōng guò。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, ā kāi yà rén de jí huì kuò dà dào pǔ tōng de laioi; ér tè luò yī rén de jí huì hái bāo kuò nián lǎo tǐ ruò de fēi zhàn dǒu rén yuán。 yòu dì wèi de fā yán zhě yī bān yào shǒu wò wáng zhàng, yǐ dé tǐ de fāng shì jiǎng huà。 shǒu lǐng men zūn cóng“ yán lùn zì yóu” de yuán zé; zài jí huì shàng, cǐ nǎi tā men de quán lì( 9·33)。 Gerontes kě duì rèn hé rén tí chū pī píng( shèn zhì mán mà), bāo kuò duì zuì gāo jūn shì shǒu cháng 'ā gā mén nóng。 bù guò, duì dì wèi bǐ jiào dī xià de rén, qíng kuàng zé bù jìn xiāng tóng。 bǔ zhě kǎ 'ěr kǎ sī dān xīn tā de zhēn yán huì zhāo lái 'ā gā mén nóng de bào fù, zhǐ shì zài dé dào 'ā jī liú sī de chéng nuò hòu, fāng cái dào chū 'ā bō luó wèihé fā nù de yuán yīn。 duì yī gè shēn fèn bù gòu“ chī zhòng” de rén, zé rǔ wáng zhě zhǐ néng tì zì jǐ zhāo lái má fán hé bù xìng。 bīng zhòng men tōng guò hū hǎn biǎo shì tā men de qīng xiàng hé yì zhì héng héng shì zàn chéng, hái shì fǎn duì。
  
                    chuān dài
  
     zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, rén men chuānzhuó shí fēn jiǎn dān。 nán zǐ men jīn shēn chuān yòng yī jiàn yòng yà má bù zhì zhì de yī shān( huò xǔ kě chēng zhī wéi tào shān), jí chiton, rán hòu, rú guǒ xū yào de huà, zhào shàng yī jiàn( huò yī tiáo) yī péng huò pī péng( chlaina, pharos)。 yī bān rèn wéi, chiton shì gè wài lái cí, qǔ zì jìn lín shǎn mǐ tè rén de yòng yǔ。 Chiton kǎ jí xī shàng fù xià, duǎn xiù。 zài dì 'èr juàn lǐ, ā gā mén nóng qǐ shēn hòu, chuān shàng yī jiàn cù xīn de chiton hé yī lǐng shuò dà de pharos。 ā kāi yà rén cóng pǔ lǐ 'ā mó sī jìn sòng de shú lǐ zhōng liú chū yī jiàn chiton hé yī jiàn pharos, zuò wéi zhē guǒ yí tǐ de yòng wù( 24·588)。 fù zhàn qián, yǎ diǎn nà chuān shàng fù qīn de chiw, rán hòu kòu shàng xiōng jiá chlainai qǔ liào yáng máo, fēn dān céng hé jiā céng( shuāng céng) liǎng zhǒng, yòng shì zhēn huò gōu kòu lián xì( 10·133)。 pī péng shàng kě zhì chū jīng měi de tú wén, bìng kě rǎn chéng shēn hóng、 jiàng zǐ děng shì gǎn zhuāng zhòng de sè cǎi。 Chlainai hé pharos de jù tǐ qū bié, jīn rén bù dé 'ér zhī; dàn yòu yī diǎn kě yǐ kěn dìng, jí 'èr zhě dōukě zuò pū gài zhī yòng。 ā jī liú sī de pú shǔ men yòng chlainai wéi pǔ lǐ 'ā mó sī bèi chuáng( 24·646); mù 'ěr mí dōng bīng yǒng men jiāng pà tè luó kè luò sī tái shàng shī chuáng, gài shàng yī céng báobáo de yà má bù, yòng yī tiáo bái sè de pharos zhào yǎn quán shēn( 18·352 héng 53)。 shèn zhì kě zuò fēng fān de yòng liào(《 ào dé sài》 5·258)。 zài zhè xiē shàng xià wén lǐ, chlaina hé pharos sì hū hé dà piàn de zhì bù méi yòu shénme liǎng yàng。 bīng yǒng men yī bān zú dèng tiáo xié, kě néng qǔ liào jiān rèn de niú pí。
     fù nǚ men tōng cháng shēn zhe qún shān( peplos, heanos), bìng hé nán zǐ yī yàng, chuān yòng pharos。 Peplos duǎn xiù, xū yòng shì zhēn bié lián。 yà má bù qún shān cháng qǔ qí bái liàng de běn sè, yì kě zhì chū gè zhǒng tiáo wén, rǎn chū duō zhǒng sè cǎi( kě néng xì yáng máo zhì liào) héng héng hé mǎ yòng“ lí míng dǒu kāi jīn hóng sè de qún páo”( 8·1) biǎo xiàn shǔ guāng pū xiè dà dì de guī lì jǐng sè。 qún shān yī bān cháng chuí zhí xiè, hebewi( cháng qún piāo bǎi de) shì hǎo de yī gè chéng shì huà shì yǔ。 fù nǚ men jīhū wú lì wài dì shǐ yòng yāo dài, zhā zài peplos。 wài miàn héng héng“ shù yāo jǐn shēn de” hé“ shù yāo xiù měi de” zhèng shì duì zhè yī zhuāng shù xí guàn de tiē qiē 'ér yòu fù yòu shī yì de xiě zhào。
     fù nǚ men tōng cháng dài yòng tóu jīn( kredemnon, kaluptre), kě néng xì yī zhǒng yà má bù zhì wù。 Kredemon cóng tóu dǐng zhē jí bó xiàng, shèn zhì kě néng chuí guò jiān tóu。 cháng ruò xū yào, yòng zhě kě jiāng tóu jīn yǎn qǐ liǎn miàn, rú tóng péi nài luó pèi zài zǒu rù qiú hūn zhě men de tīng táng。
  
                  hòu qì、 kǎi jiá
  
     hé mǎ běn shēn méi yòu jīng lì guò tè luò yī zhàn zhēng。 hé mǎ shǐ shī shì chuán tǒng hé tiān cái chuàng zuò de chǎn wù, ér bù shì yán gé yì yì shàng de lì shǐ。 xiàng duì qí tā yī xiē shì wù、 zhuàng tài hé xiàn xiàng de miáo shù yī yàng, hé mǎ duì bīng xiè de miáo shù yě dài yòu“ kuà shí dài” de tè zhēng。 tā suǒ tí jí de jiá xiè, yòu de shǔ yú mù kǎi nài shí qī de yòng wù, yòu de zé kě néng chū xiàn zài yǐ hòu, shèn zhì wǎn zhì hé mǎ shēng huó de nián dài。 suǒ wèi shǐ shī, shì shī hé shǐ de jié hé, kě yǐ, ér qiě yīnggāi yòu yī xiē bù hé shǐ shí、 shèn zhì píng kōng xiǎng xiàng chū lái de chéngfèn。
    ( 1) jìng jiá
    “ jìng jiá jiān gù de”( euknemides) shì xíng róng 'ā kāi yà shì bīng de zuì cháng yòng de chéng shì huà shì yǔ, zài《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng chū xiàn liǎo sān shí yī cì。 zǎo qī de jìng jiá kě néng yòng shēng niú pí( shèn zhì cū bù) zhì chéng, lèi sì lāi 'ěr tè sī zài pú táo yuán lǐ gōng zuò shí suǒ yòu de pí zhì hù tuǐ(《 ào dé sài》 24·228 héng 29)。 zài mù kǎi nài shí dài, tóng jìng jiá de shǐ yòng bìng bù pǔ biàn。 cóng yuán wén kàn, knemis( jìng jiá) běn shēn bìng bù bāo hán“ jīn shǔ” de yì sī。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ,“ jìng jiá qīng tóng de( chalkoknemides) ā kāi yà rén” jǐn chū xiàn yī cì( 7·41)。 hè fǎ yī sī tuō sī yòng bái xī wéi 'ā jī liú sī dǎ guò yī fù jìng jiá, dàn zhè shì shén gōng de zhù pǐn, kě néng yǔ zhòng bù tóng。 jìng jiá shàng 'ān zhe yín zhì de bàn kòu, wéi xì zài jiǎo huái biān。 jìng jiá de gōng yòng yī kě dǎng yù dí rén de jī shè, èr kě bǎo hù xiǎo tuǐ bù shòu dùn pái( zhē yǎn quán shēn de jù dùn, jiàn“ dùn pái” jié) de cā shāng。 gōng zhàn zhě yī bān yòng tǐ jī jiào xiǎo de yuán dùn, suǒ yǐ cháng cháng bù dài jìng jiá。
    ( 2) xiōng jiá
     jìn guǎn dào mù qián wéi zhǐ, kǎo zhàn xué jiā men hái ná bù chū yī jiàn shí wù, zhèng míng mù kǎi nài wáng cháo de wǔ shì men héng héng zhèng rú hé mǎ suǒ miáo shù de nà yàng héng héng shì“ shēn pī tóng jiá de”, dàn jiàn yú shī rén yī 'ér zài、 zài 'ér sān dì shǐ yòng zhè yī chéng shì huà tào yǔ( bù shǎo yú 'èr shí sì cì) de xiàn shí, wǒ men hěn yòu bì yào zài zhè gè wèn tí shàng cǎi qǔ yán sù、 jǐn shèn de tài dù。“ shēn pī tóng jiá de” yuán wén zuò chalkochitones( chuān qīng tóng chiton de); Chiton zài bǐ yù“ jiá” huò“ jiá yī”。 hé mǎ sì hū háo bù huái yí 'ā kāi yà yǒng shì shì“ shēn pī tóng jiá de”( chaleorekon)。 hè fǎ yī sī tuō sī tì 'ā jī liú sī dǎ guò yī fù tóng jiá, ōu mò luò sī yì shōu shòu guò yī fù tóng jiá de shǎng lǐ。 rú guǒ shuō zhè liǎng fù tóng jiá yī fù shì shén gōng zhì zuò de jīng pǐn, lìng yī fù shì kuì zèng de lǐ wù 'ér bù zú yǐ shuō míng pǔ tōng xiōng jiá de zhì dì, nà me, zài lìng yī xiē jiào wéi yī bān de chǎng hé, hé mǎ miáo shù de thorekes( xiōng jiá) yì tóng yàng míng xiǎn dì bāo róng“ jīn shǔ zhì zuò” de hán yì。 shī rén de yòng cí bāo kuò“ shǎn liàng de”、“ cā dé zèng liàng de” děng děng。 xiǎo 'āi 'ā sī hé tè luò yī rén 'ān fěi 'é sī chuān yòng yà má bù xiōng jiá( zhōng jiān kě néng yòu suǒ chōng tián), dàn tā men bìng bù shì yī liú de zhàn jiāng。 zài mǒu xiē shàng xià wén lǐ, hé mǎ hái tí jí yī zhǒng jiào zuò guala de dōng xī( 15·530), kě néng zhǐ xiōng jiá qián hòu de tóng piàn, zhuì qiàn zài pí gé huò qí tā zhì liào de jiá miàn shàng, yǐ zēng qiáng thorekes de fáng hù néng lì。
    ( 3) dùn pái
     Sakose hé aspis kě néng yuán zhǐ liǎng zhǒng bù tóng de zhàn dùn。 Aspis tōng cháng shì“ dùn miàn tū gǔ de”( omphaloessa)、“ liù yuán de”( pantoseise, ér cháng cháng shì“ shuò dà、 jiān gù de”( mpgatestibaronte)、“ yòng qī céng niú pí zhì zuò de”( haptaboeion)、 hé“ qiáng miàn shìde” huò“ tǎ yī bān de”( eutepurgos)。 dào liǎo hé mǎ shēng huó de nián dài, aspis hé sakos hěn kě néng yǐ chéng wéi kě yǐ hù huàn de tóng yì cí。
     jù kǎo gǔ fā xiàn, mù kǎi nài shí dài de zhàn yǒng men shǐ yòng liǎng zhǒng tǐ jī shuò dà、 jǐ kě zhē yǎn quán shēn de pí dùn, yī zhǒng wéi cháng fāng xíng de、 shuāng biān nèi juàn de gǒng dùn, lìng yī zhǒng shì zhōng yāo nèi shōu、 chéng 8 zì xíng de hù dùn。 èr zhě dōuyòu dùn dài( telamon), bèi kuà yú zuǒ jiān zhī shàng, héng guàn yú yòu yè zhī xià; bù yòng shí, kě yǐ shuǎi zhì bèi hòu。《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng duō cì tí jí cǐ lèi céng miàn shuò dà de zhàn dùn。 āi 'ā sī shēn bèi“ qiáng miàn shìde” jù dùn( 7·219), ér hè kè tuō 'ěr de dùn pái kě yǐ zhē yǎn bó zǐ yǐ xià、 jiǎo huái yǐ shàng de shēn tǐ bù wèi( 15·646)。 hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ de zhàn hòu tōng cháng shì“ shǎn liàng de” huò“ shǎn guāng de”, cǐ lèi shì yǔ míng xiǎn dì yù zhǐ dùn miàn huò pí miàn shàng de tóng céng。 mù kǎi nài wáng cháo de hòu qī shì fǒu chū xiàn dài tóng miàn de pí dùn, dào mù qián wéi zhǐ, wǒ men hái bù néng zuò chū què qiē de dá fù。
     yuán xíng zhàn dùn tǐ jī jiào xiǎo, zhōng xīn tū gǔ, dài tú wén, yòu bēidài, chū xiàn yú mù kǎi nài wáng cháo de hòu qī, kě néng yì shì gōng yuán qián jiǔ zhì qī shì jì de shǐ shī shī rén men zài shēng huó zhōng cháng jiàn de dùn shì。
    ( 4) tóu kuī
     hé mǎ yòng korus、 kunee、 truphaleia hé pelex děng cí biǎo shì tóu mào huò mào kuī。 zhè xiē cí yuán lái kě néng fēn zhǐ bù tóng de kuī yàng, dàn zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ yǐ jù tōng yòng de xìng zhì。 hé mǎ kě zài tóng yī gè shàng xià wén lǐ, yòng shàng shù míng cí( bù shì quán bù) zhǐ chēng tóng yī dǐng tóu kuī。 shàng shù sì cí zhōng, qián 'èr zhě gèng jiào cháng yòng。
     zǎo qī de tóu kuī yī bān wéi pí liào zhì pǐn, zhē gài tóu dǐng、 qián 'é hé tài yáng xué, yóu kuī dài jǐn kòu xià hé; guān dǐng chā zhuì mǎ zōng( què qiē dì shuō, yìng wéi mǎ máo, bāo kuò mǎ zōng hé mǎyǐ), yòu de hái dài jiǎo zhì de huò jīn shǔ de tū jiǎo( Phalos)。
     zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, tóu kuī yī bān yòng liào jīn shǔ, huò dài yòu jīn shǔ de hù piàn。 mǒu xiē shì cí, rú chalkeres( tóng guāng shǎn shuò de) hé phaeinos( zhèng liàng de) děng, míng xiǎn dì gào shì tóu kuī de jīn shǔ xìng zhì。 zài ruò gān shàng xià wén lǐ, hé mǎ gān cuì zài tóu kuī qián hòu jiā shàng“ tóng” zì, chēng qí wéi“ tóng kuī”( chalkeiekorus, kuneepagchalkos)。 jiān hū chū xiàn de chalkopareios děng cí biǎo míng tóu kuī dài yòu qīng tóng de jiá piàn。 zì gǔ yǐ lái, xué zhě men duì phalos de suǒ zhǐ nán néng qǔ dé yī zhì de jiě shì: yòu de bǎ tā jiě zuò“ tū jiǎo” huò mǒu zhǒng xíng shì de tū chū wù, yòu de zé qǔ“ guān jǐ”, hái yòu de bǎ tā děng tóng yú“ jiá piàn”。 tóu kuī de yòng liào hé shì yàng dāng bù zhǐ xiàn yú yī zhǒng。 lì rú, zài dì shí juàn lǐ, sī lā sū mò dé sī gěi liǎo dí 'é mò dé sī yī dǐng mào kuī,“ niú pí zuò jiù, wú jiǎo, yě méi yòu kuī guān”( 257 héng 58); ér mò lǐ 'é nài sī zé gěi 'é dǐ xiū sī dài shàng yī dǐng pí kuī,“ wài miàn shì yī pái pái xuě bái de yá piàn”,“ zhōng jiān diàn zhe yī céng róng zhān”( 262 héng 65)。 cǐ zhǒng pí lǐ yá piàn miàn de tóu kuī zài chū tǔ de mù kǎi nài wén wù zhōng yǐ yòu fā xiàn。
    ( 5) jiàn
     Xiphos、 aor hé phasganon sān cí jūn yù“ jiàn”, yì sī shàng méi yòu míng xiǎn de qū bié。 zài tóng yī gè shàng xià wén lǐ, hé mǎ céng yòng zhè sān gè cí biǎo zhǐ tóng yī bǐng lì jiàn。 zài hé mǎ shǐ shī lǐ, jiàn zhàn de chǎng hé bù duō, yì méi yòu dà duàn de miáo shù。“ qiàn zhuì yín dīng de”( arguloelon) yī cí bǎ wǒ men dài dào yáo yuǎn de mù kǎi nài shí dài。 zhàn jiàn qīng tóng, dài qiào, yòu bēidài, kě xié kuà jiān tóu。
    ( 6) qiāng máo
     cháng qiāng shì《 yī lì yà tè》 zhōng de zhù yào bīng qì。 zài chéng shì huà de“ wǔ zhuāng fù zhàn” chǎng jǐng zhōng, ā jī liú sī cāo tí yīgǎn cháng qiāng( egchos), ér 'ā gā mén nóng hé pà tè luó kè luò sī zé gè ná liǎng zhī qiāng máo( doUle)。 EgChO6 jiào wéi cū zhòng, cháng yǐ“ shuò dà、 cū cháng、 chén zhòng( de)” wéi shì cí。 zài dì shí liù juàn lǐ, pà tè luó kè luò sī chuān qǐ 'ā jī liú sī de kǎi jiá, dàn què bù céng zhuā wò tā de qiāng máo,“ nà wán yì……( chú liǎo 'ā jī liú sī) ā kāi yà rén zhōng shuí yě tí ná bù dé”( 141 héng 42)。 yī bān rèn wéi, egchos yòng zhù yào yòng yú jìn zhàn cì tǒng, ér douree zé zhù yào yòng yú yuǎn jù lí de tóu shè。 bù guò, zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, zhè liǎng gè cí tōng cháng kě yǐ hù huàn shǐ yòng, qí“ zì yóu” chéng dù bù xià yú xiphos hé phasganon de tì huàn。
    ( 7) gōng jiàn( hé gōng shǒu)
     hé mǎ duì gōng de miáo shù bù duō。 zài dì sì juàn lǐ, tā gào sù wǒ men, pān dá luó sī de wān gōng qǔ zì yī tóu zì dǎ de yě shān yáng de chā jiǎo( 105 héng 6)。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, yóu qí shì zài tè luò yī méng jūn fāng miàn, gōng( toxon) de shǐ yòng xiāng dāng pǔ biàn。 zài rén yuán páng zá de bīng duì lǐ, agkulotoxoi( gōng shǒu) sì hū yǐ shì yī gè zhuān mén de bīng zhǒng。 lǔ jī yà rén、 kǎ lǐ yà rén hé mài 'é ní yà réndōu shì shǐ gōng de bīng yǒng, ér lǔ jī yà shǒu lǐng pān dá luó sī gèng shì yī wèi zhī míng de hǎo gōng shǒu。 tè luò yī rén zhōng, pà lǐ sī。 hè lè nuò sī hé duō lóng děngdōu shì xié gōng de zhàn jiāng。 ā kāi yà rén shàn shǐ cháng qiāng, gōng shǒu xiāng duì xī shǎo, zhù yào yòu fěi luò kè tè tè sī、 mò lǐ 'é nài sī hé diū kè luó sī。 zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, gōng jiàn sì hū shì yī zhǒng xiāng duì gǔ jiù de bīng qì; shī rén xiǎn rán yǐ wéi“ shǒu duì shǒu” de gōng zhàn gèng néng biǎo xiàn yīng xióng bó shā de zhuàng liè。 zài dì shí yī juàn lǐ, dí 'é mò dé sī duì shǐ gōng de pà lǐ sī sì hū pō yòu wēi cí( 385)。
     jiàn shǐ yī bān wéi tóng tóu, dàn pān dá luó sī de yǔ jiàn què yǐ tiě wéi zú。
    ( 8) zhàn chē
     zhàn chē( diphros) yī bān wéi mù jià jié gòu, biān wéi hé dǐ miàn yòng pí tiáo bǎng zhā, jì kě jiǎn qīng chē shēn de zhòng liàng( yī rén jí kě dǐng tái, 10·504 héng 5), yòu kě xiāo huǎn páo dòng shí de diān bǒ。 zhàn chē zuò gōng jīng zhì, yòu de shèn zhì dài yòu jīn yín de xiāng shì( 10·438)。 shén yòng de diphros, rú hè lā de zhàn chē, jīhū shì jīn、 yín、 tóng de pīn hé( 5·722 héng 31)。
     zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, zhàn chē de zuò yòng xiāng dāng yú jīn tiān de bīng chē。 yù mǎ jiāng zhàn chē lā zhì zhàn dì, zhuàng shì( tōng cháng zhǐ yòu yī rén) cóng chē shàng tiào xià, tú bù jiè rù zhàn dǒu, ér yù shǒu zé lè mǎ liú zài hòu miàn, děng dài zhàn yǒng de huí guī。 zuò wéi yī zhǒng dìng xíng de zhàn shì, tā de chǎn shēng dà gài duō shǎo dài yòu shī rén“ chuàng zuò” de chéngfèn。 hé mǎ yīnggāi bù huì bù zhī dào diphros de zuò zhàn gōng yòng( chú liǎo yùn bīng yǐ wài), dàn zài《 yī lì yà tè》 lǐ, tā duì zhè fāng miàn de miáo shù què zhǐ yòu jué wú jǐn yòu de yī lì。 zài dì sì juàn lǐ, lǎo bèi rén wù nài sī tuō 'ěr mìng zhǔ tā de bù shǔ: shuí yě bù xǔ dān dú chū jī huò tuì què; jiāo shǒu shí, chē shàng de dǒu shì yào yòng cháng qiāng cì tǒng dí rén( 303 héng 7)。 nài sī tuō 'ěr xuān chēng, guò qù, zhè shì yī 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.

评论 (2)

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

  《 yī lǐ yà tè》 jí zhōng miáo xiě liǎo zhàn zhēng jié shù qián 51 tiān de gù shì: xī là lián jūn tǒng shuài 'ā gā mén nóng shì shì dāng zhòng rǔ mà xī là lián jūn zhù jiāng 'ā kā liú sī, bìng duó zǒu liǎo tā de nǚ fú。 ā kā liú sī rǔ fèn jiāo jiā tuì chū zhàn dǒu, xī là lián jūn yīn 'ér jié jié bài tuì。 zhí zhì 'ā kā liú sī de hǎo yǒu yě bèi tè luò yī zhù jiāng hè kè tuō shā sǐ, xī là lián jūn miàn lín bēng kuì de jǐn jí guān tóu, ā kā liú sī cái pāo qì jiù yuàn, chóngxīn shàng zhèn, wǎn huí bài jú, bìng shā sǐ hè kè tuō。 shǐ shī zài tè luò yī rén wéi hè kè tuō jǔ xíng lóng zhòng zàng lǐ zhōng jié shù。《 yī lǐ yà tè》 yǐ yīng xióng yè jì wéi zhōng xīn, yòng dà liàng piān fú miáo xiě yīng xióng men de zhàn dǒu, gē sòng yǒng gǎn, chōng mǎn yīng xióng zhù yì qì xī。
  
  《 hé mǎ shǐ shī》 shì xī là zuì zǎo de yī bù shǐ shī, bāo kuò《 yī lǐ yà tè》 hé《 ào dé sài》 liǎng bù fēn, xiāng chuán shì yóu máng shī rén hé mǎ suǒ zuò, shí jì shàng tā chǎn shēng yú mín jiān kǒu tóu wén xué。
  
   yī lǐ yà tè( ΙΛΙΑΣ, Ilias,Iliad, yòu yì《 yī lì 'áng jì》, jīn yì《 yī lì yà tè》。) shì gǔ xī là máng shī rén hé mǎ (Homer,800BC-600BC) de xù shì shī shǐ shī。 shì zhòng yào de gǔ xī là wén xué zuò pǐn, yě shì zhěng gè xī fāng de jīng diǎn zhī yī。《 yī lì yà tè》 gòng 'èr shí sì juàn( xì hòu rén suǒ fēn), 15,693( ±) xíng, gè juàn de cháng dù cóng 429 dào 999 xíng bù děng。 shǐ shī《 yī lì yà tè》 suī rán qǔ cái yú tè luò yà zhàn zhēng de chuán shuō, què cóng xī là lián jūn wéi gōng tè luò yà jiǔ nián líng shí gè yuè hòu de yīcháng nèi hòng xiě qǐ, bìng qiě xiě dào hè kè tuō 'ěr de zàng lǐ jiù jié shù liǎo。 yǐn qǐ zhè chǎng zhàn zhēng de jīn píng guǒ de shén huà, zài tā miáo xiě hǎi lún hé pà lǐ sī shí yòu suǒ tí jí, mù mǎ jì hé tè luò yà de xiàn luò, zé jiàn yú《 ào dé xiū jì》 (《 ào dé sài》) zhōng 'ào dé xiū duì wǎng shì de huí yì。《 yī lǐ yà tè》 de tóu yī jù shì“ ā kā liú sī de fèn nù shì wǒ de zhù tí”。 xī là lián jūn dàjiàng 'ā kā liú sī xìng liè rú huǒ, tā yòu liǎng cì fèn nù de biǎo xiàn。 shǐ shī xiě dào, zhàn zhēng yǐ jīng dǎ liǎo jiǔ nián líng shí gè yuè, hái shì shèng fù nán cè, zhè shí xī là lián jūn yīn wēn yì fā shēng nèi hòng。 wēn yì shì lián jūn tǒng shuài 'ā gā mén nóng jù jué guī hái yī gè nǚ fú suǒ yǐn qǐ de, yīn wéi zhè gè nǚ fú shì rì shén 'ā bō luó jì sī de nǚ 'ér, ā bō luó de jì sī qǐng qiú 'ā gā mén nóng guī hái tā de nǚ 'ér shòu dào jù jué, jiù qí qiú 'ā bō luó chéng fá xī là lián jūn。 zhè chǎng wēn yì màn yán xià qù jiù huì shǐ xī là lián jūn bù kě shōu shí, yīn cǐ 'ā kā liú sī yào qiú 'ā gā mén nóng bǎ zhè gè nǚ fú guī hái, miǎn dé wēn yì jì xù màn yán。 ā gā mén nóng zài hěn bù qíng yuàn de qíng kuàng xià guī hái liǎo zhè gè nǚ fú, què bù gōng zhèng dì duó zǒu liǎo yuán lái fēn pèijǐ 'ā kā liú sī de lìng yī gè nǚ fú, zuò wéi tā zì jǐ sǔn shī de bǔ cháng, ā kā liú sī zài fèn nù zhī xià jù jué cān zhàn。 zài xī là lián jūn zhōng, zhǐ yòu 'ā kā liú sī cái shì hè kè tuō 'ěr de duì shǒu, yīn cǐ tā jù jué cān zhàn jiù bì rán yǐn qǐ xī là lián jūn de shī lì。 xī là lián jūn zài cǐ qíng kuàng xià dǐ yù bù liǎo tè luò yà jūn duì de fǎn gōng, zhǐ hǎo tuì 'ér gù shǒu hǎi bīn de zhàn chuán, zài nà lǐ gòu zhù liǎo fáng shǒu xìng de bì lěi。 ā gā mén nóng zhè shí hòu huǐ zì jǐ duì 'ā kā liú sī bù gōng, zhǐ hǎo pài 'ào dé xiū hé lìng yī wèi xī là jiànglǐng qù xiàng tā qiú hé。 kě shì tā fèn nù wèi xiāo, jiān jué bù dāyìng huí dào zhàn zhēng。 ā kā liú sī zhǐ shì zài tè luò yà jūn duì yǐ jīng tū pò xī là lián jūn de bì lěi zòng huǒ fén shāo tā men de zhàn chuán de shí fēn wēi jí de qíng kuàng xià, cái bǎ tā de kuī jiá hé zhàn mǎ jiè gěi tā de hǎo yǒu pà tè luò kè luó sī, ràng pà tè luò kè luó sī qián qù yìng dí。 pà tè luò kè luó sī suī rán jī tuì liǎo tè luò yà jūn duì de gōng jī, dàn zhōng wéi hè kè tuō 'ěr suǒ shā, yīn cǐ 'ā kā liú sī jiè gěi tā de kuī jiá yě diū diào liǎo, zhè kuī jiá yuán shì tā de mǔ qīn tè tí sī nǚ shén qǐng jiàng shén zhì zào de。 zhàn yǒu zhī sǐ yǔ kuī jiá bèi diū yǐn qǐ 'ā kā liú sī de dì 'èr cì fèn nù, ér shǐ tā yǔ 'ā gā mén nóng hé jiě, bìng qiě zài tā mǔ qīn qǐng jiàng shén gěi tā zhì zào liǎo yī fù xīn kuī jiá zhī hòu, chóngxīn huí dào zhàn zhēng, zuì hòu shā sǐ liǎo hè kè tuō 'ěr, qǔ dé liǎo jué dìng xìng de shèng lì。
  
  《 yī lǐ yà tè》 xù shù liǎo tè luò yī zhàn zhēng dì shí nián( yě shì zuì hòu yī nián) zhōng jǐ gè xīng qī de huó dòng, tè bié shì“ ā jī lǐ sī (Achilles, gǔ xī là chuán shuō zhōng yǒng shì ) de lì liàng”。 shǐ shī yǐ 'ā jī lǐ sī hé 'ā gā mén nóng (Agamemnon) de zhēng chǎo kāi shǐ, yǐ hè kè tuō 'ěr de zàng lǐ jié shù, gù shì de bèi jǐng hé zuì zuì zhōng de jié jú dōuméi yòu zhí jiē xù shù。
  
   yī lǐ yà tè hé 'ào dé sài dū zhǐ shì gèng hóng dà de xù shì shī chuán tǒng de yī bù fēn, cǐ wài hái yòu xǔ duō bù tóng cháng dù bù tóng zuò zhě de xù shì shī zuò, zhǐ bù guò zhǐ yòu yī xiē piàn duàn liú chuán xià lái。
  
  《 yī lì yà tè》 shì hé mǎ shǐ shī zhōng zhí jiē miáo xiě tè luò yà zhàn zhēng de yīng xióng shǐ shī。 xī là lián jūn zhù jiāng 'ā kā liú sī yīn xǐ 'ài de yī gè nǚ fú bèi tǒng shuài 'ā gā mén nóng duó zǒu, fèn 'ér tuì chū zhàn dǒu, tè luò yà rén chéng jī dà pò xī là lián jūn。 zài wēi jí guān tóu, ā kā liú sī de hǎo yǒu pà tè luò kè luó sī chuān shàng 'ā kā liú sī de kuī jiá shàng zhèn, bèi tè luò yà dàjiàng hè kè tuō 'ěr shā sǐ。 ā kā liú sī huǐ hèn yǐ jí, zhòng shàng zhàn chǎng, shā sǐ hè kè tuō 'ěr。 tè luò yà lǎo wáng yǐ zhòng jīn shú hái 'ér zǐ shī tǐ。 shǐ shī zài hè kè tuō 'ěr de zàng lǐ zhōng jié shù。
  
  《 yī lì yà tè》 de zhù tí shì zàn měi gǔ dài yīng xióng de gāng qiáng wēi wǔ、 jī zhì yǒng gǎn, ōu gē tā men zài tóng yì zú zhàn dǒu zhōng suǒ jiàn lì de fēng gōng wěi jì hé yīng xióng zhù yì、 jí tǐ zhù yì jīng shén。
  
  《 yī lì yà tè》 sù zào liǎo yī xì liè gǔ dài yīng xióng xíng xiàng。 zài tā men shēn shàng, jì jí zhōng liǎo bù luò jí tǐ suǒ yào qiú de yōu liáng pǐn dé, yòu tū chū liǎo gè rén de xìng gé tè zhēng。 ā kā liú sī yīng yǒng shàn zhàn, měi cì shàng zhèn dū shǐ dí rén wàng fēng pīmǐ。 tā zhēn 'ài yǒu yì, yī tīng dào hǎo yǒu zhèn wáng de 'è hào, bēi tòng yù jué, fèn 'ér bēn xiàng zhàn chǎng wéi yǒu fù chóu。 tā duì lǎo rén yě yòu tóng qíng zhī xīn, yǔn nuò báifà cāng cāng de tè luò yà lǎo wáng guī hái hè kè tuō 'ěr shī tǐ de qǐng qiú。 kě shì tā yòu 'ào màn rèn xìng, wèile yī gè nǚ fú 'ér hé tǒng shuài nào fān, tuì chū zhàn dǒu, zào chéng lián jūn de cǎn bài。 tā bào zào xiōng hěn, wèile xiè fèn, jìng jiāng hè kè tuō 'ěr de shī tǐ shuān shàng zhàn chē rào chéng sān juàn。 yǔ zhī xiāng bǐ, tè luò yà tǒng shuài hè kè tuō 'ěr zé shì yī gè gèng jiā wán měi de gǔ dài yīng xióng xíng xiàng。 tā shēn xiān shì zú, chéng shú chí zhòng, zì jué dān fù qǐ bǎo wèi jiā yuán hé bù luò jí tǐ de zhòng rèn。 tā zhuī qiú róng yù, bù wèi qiáng dí, zài dí wǒ lì liàng xuán shū de wēi jí guān tóu, réng rán háo wú jù sè, chū chéng yíng dí, fèn yǒng sī shā。 tā jìng zhòng fù mǔ, zhì 'ài qī 'ér, jué zhàn qián gào bié qīn rén de dòng rén chǎng miàn, chōng mǎn liǎo nóng hòu de rén qíng wèi hé gǎn rén de bēi zhuàng sè cǎi。
  
  《 yī lì yà tè》 jié gòu yán jǐn, bù jú jīng qiǎo。 tā yǐ“ ā kā liú sī de fèn nù” zuò wéi quán shū de zhù xiàn, qí tā rén wù、 shì jiàn dū huán rào zhè tiáo zhù xiàn zhǎn kāi, xíng chéng yán jǐn de zhěng tǐ。 shǐ shī shàn yú yòng dòng wù de dòng zuò, huò yòng zì rán jǐng guān、 shēng huó xiàn xiàng zuò bǐ yù, gòu chéng fù yòu qíng qù de“ hé mǎ shì bǐ yù”。 lì rú shū zhōng xiě dào 'ā kā liú sī tuì chū zhàn dǒu, hè kè tuō 'ěr dǎ dé xī là jūn duì sì chù bēn táo, shǐ shī yòng liǎo zhè yàng de bǐ yù:“ hǎo xiàng yī zhǐ yě mán de shī zǐ gōng jìn niú qún, chī liǎo yī tóu 'ér xià dé qí yú de fēn fēn táo cuàn。” qí zhōng yòu míng jù“ wǒ de shēng mìng shì bù néng jiàn mài de , wǒ nìngkě zhàn dǒu 'ér sǐ qù , bù yào zǒu shàng bù guāng róng de jié jú , ràng xiǎn hè de gōng xūn chuán dào lái shì” shǐ shī jié zòu qiáng liè, yǔ diào 'áng yáng, jì shì yú biǎo xiàn zhòng dà shì jiàn, yòu biàn yú kǒu tóu yín sòng。《 yī lì yà tè》 gāo chāo de yì shù shǒu fǎ 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.