CHAPTER XVIII

HOMER AND THE CYCLIC POEMS

Few subjects are more recalcitrant to lucidity of treatment than the so-called "Cyclic poems." On the various meanings of the word "Cyclic" as applied to poetry by the ancients, very much has been written.[1] Into that question we need not enter, as we here call "Cyclic" all these old epics on the Trojan theme (outside of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_) of which we have only fragments, in quotations by later Greek writers, and in fragmentary epitomes. Though these remains, including the prose of the Greek authors who cite and comment on them, occupy but forty-five pages of a book in small octavo,[2] the fragments suffice to prove that the lost epics are far apart as the poles from the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ in taste, tone, narrative art, descriptions of religious rites, customs, usages, and treatment of the heroic characters. This was plain to Greek commentators, and is even more obvious to modern criticism.

The questions, therefore, arise, were these Cyclic epics older in _matter_ (as representing a more archaic tradition) than our Homer; are they older, or more recent, in _composition_, or are they and our Homer coeval? Mr. Monro expresses decisively the general opinion on these points. The Cyclic poems are by "the poets who carried on the traditions of Homeric art in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C."[3] He collects from them many incidents, beliefs, usages, and proofs of geographical knowledge "of a post-Homeric type."[4] Of these, from one poem, the _Cypria_, he selects five sets of examples. These represent (i) human sacrifice; (2) geographical knowledge much beyond that exhibited in _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_; (3) interest in magic, which is un-Homeric; (4) the introduction of a non-Homeric hero, Palamedes, of the first rank, of essential importance, and the "Cause of Wrath" of Zeus against the Achaeans; (5) hero-worship; (6) I add, introduction of a goddess unknown to Homer, but "a concrete figure of ancient Attic religion;"[5] (7) introduction of the puerile fairy element in _Märchen_ or folk-tales. Of this trait, and of magical incidents, there are several examples. (8) loves of gods and goddesses, who take the forms of various animals. From other Cyclic poems he selects other instances of these non-Homeric types, and also un-Homeric apparitions of men who have been duly burned and buried; and cases of the purification of homicides by blood of pigs, wholly unknown to Homer.

All these traits of the Cyclic poems, with others, such as the invention of pseudo-historic genealogies, as of Thersites, are non-Homeric. Some, such as the genealogy of Thersites, due to the _manie cyclique_, with the extended geographical outlook, are _post_-Homeric. But the others, the religious and magical notions-- hero-worship, the ghost belief, blood-purification,--though later in record than our Homer (we assume), are even earlier in development, and are beliefs and rites of the pre-Homeric population. (See "Who were the Ionians?" and Appendix, On "Expurgation.")

Now much confusion is caused by the term "old." The poems earlier _in composition_ may represent Achaean ideas then new to Greece; the poems later in composition may, and do, contain ideas old in Greece, but alien to Homer's Achaeans. Meanwhile, Mr. Monro, as we saw, regards the actual Cyclic poems as works of poets of the eighth to seventh centuries B.C., who carried "on the traditions of Homeric art" in Ionia. This means that they take up Achaean themes and traditions and heroic characters, and use them in new poems "composed with direct reference to the _Iliad_."[6] They lead up to the _Iliad_ by a long chronicle of previous events in the _Cypria_, and continue the Homeric narrative in their other epics. But they interlard the narrative with their own rites, beliefs, their own Attic goddess (Nemesis of Rhamnus), and their own non-Achaean heroes, such as the Attic sons of Theseus, and the great Nauplian, Palamedes. They also add silly elements of _Märchen_, and pseudo-historic genealogies. They carve and cook the great Achaean joint, and serve up with Attic and Ionian sauce and trimmings.

This is natural, for the Attic people, of the pre-Achaean population, had not, as far as I know, any epic tradition of their own. They knew that they were not engaged in any one of the alleged great collective efforts and expeditions with which the Achaeans credited themselves. Some legends were dynastic adaptations of _Märchen_, with kings and princesses changed into birds; or accounts of their relations with Thrace, or explanations of the origin of the Eleusinian mysteries. They had, too, the story of Theseus and the Minotaur, an adventure of an individual hero of _Märchen_; but that ran contrary to all Achaean and Cretan traditions, as we have seen. The Cyclic poets were mere imitators of the Achaean epic: _epic_ tradition of their own, the people of Attica and their Ionian colonists (confessedly mixed with a mongrel multitude) had none.

Mr. Leaf takes the same view. He speaks of the Cyclic epics as "the imitative poems which dealt with the old Tale of Troy, and essayed to complete Homer."[7]

But a contradictory opinion seems to be held by von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, and, as I understand, by Mr. Murray. The celebrated German scholar argued thus: Before criticism arose in Greece, almost all ancient Epic poetry, and the Hymns, were attributed to "Homer." As early as Herodotus, however, we find that historian regarding the _Cypria_ (a chronicle of the whole events before the opening of the _Iliad_) as not by the author of the _Iliad_.

As time went on, and criticism advanced, the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ alone were assigned to Homer, while the Cyclic poems were attributed to various authors, such as Arctinus, Stasinus, and Lesches. The attributions are late, various, perhaps never "evidential"; but criticism came to recognise our _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ as alone Homeric. The other epics, the Cyclics, were thought to be of a later age, and by inferior hands.

This view was evolved by Greek critics from Herodotus to Aristotle and Aristarchus.

On the other hand, according to Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Homer and the Cyclic poems were all qualitatively equivalent, and more or less contemporaneous. A statement of this hypothesis, which deliberately rejects the views of Greek criticism, shall be quoted from von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff.[8]

"The epos" (the whole mass of early epic poetry) "is by Homer," so says tradition. "The criticism of the subsequent centuries broke off from the mass of epos one portion after another: one after another must go, because it is inconsistent with the conception which has been framed of Homer. At last the _Iliad_ alone abides. The only step that remained to be taken was to reject (_athetiren_) the _Iliad_ also: this step the ancients refused to take, for fear of falling into the abyss. But the step has been taken long ago. The _Iliad_, as it stands, is not the work of one man, or of one century: it is not _one_ work at all. The _Iliad_ is nothing but a _κυκλικὸν ποίημα_. But we are in no abyss, no bottomless pit. On the other hand, we regain firm ground, which ancient criticism had in childish rashness abandoned. The _Iliad_ is just as much and as little Homeric as the _Cypria_. There is no qualitative difference between _ὁμηρικόν_ and _κυκλικόν_."

Now that careless child, Aristotle, was of a different opinion. He saw that the _Iliad_ varies absolutely in nature from some of the Cyclics, and the fact is conspicuous. The _Iliad_ also varies, as the scholiasts observed, from the Cyclics historically; varies in manners, rites, religion, taste, and geographical knowledge. All these facts are absolutely demonstrable. So great a critic as Aristotle, and, we may add, so unprejudiced a critic, for he lived long before Wolf, could not but remark the essential differences between the _Iliad_, on the one hand, and some of the Ionian Cyclic poems on the other, as far as _quality_ is concerned. Into the differences which archaeology and anthropology detect, Aristotle did not enter, for he was writing on the Art of Poetry. Unity in a poem, he said, is not obtained merely by the selection of a single hero (the _Cypria_ is so far like _Vanity Fair_ that it is a chronicle "without a hero," unless the hero be Paris or Palamedes). _Unity of action_ is, says Aristotle, essential to an Epic, and Homer observes this unity, grouping all the events round one _motif_, the Wrath of Achilles, or the Return of Odysseus. The _Cypria_ has no such unity; it simply ends where the _Iliad_ begins.

Unity, concentration, "with beginning, middle, and end," is as necessary, Aristotle holds, to epic as to dramatic poetry. The Trojan war, to be sure, has a beginning, a middle, and an end, but the whole could not be treated in an Epic under poetic conditions of space. One _motif_ is therefore selected by Homer, with diversifying episodes. The author of the _Cypria_ did not adopt the true method of epic: in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ are subjects but for one or two tragedies; whereas the _Cypria_, extending over many years and dealing with many regions, yields subjects for many, and the _Little Iliad_ for eight or more plays, which are enumerated.[9]

We would not now state the case precisely in the terms of Aristotle: and the Attic tragedians possibly chose so many topics from the Cyclics, so few from the _Iliad_, partly because the Athenians, as chiefs of the Ionian name, preferred Ionian versions of the legends; while, as Republicans, they used the Ionian term for Agamemnon and Menelaus as "tyrants"; and kept up the singular Ionian feud against Odysseus, preferring to him Aias, a neighbour of Athens; Philoctetes, oppressed by the "tyrants"; and Palamedes, the victim of the tyrants and of their minion Odysseus.

Such were the tastes of the Athenians; but we see that Aristotle observes the essential difference in poetic _quality_ between the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, which are Epics, while some of the Cyclic poems are mere metrical chronicles.

The difference between epic and versified chronicle is, I think, that which divides Barbour's _The Brus_ and the _Wallace_ of Blind Harry (poetical chronicles like the _Heracleis_, the late poem on the history of Heracles), from epics like the _Chanson de Roland_ with its one motive, "The Wrath of Ganelon," its origins and consequences. Our _Iliad_, in Aristotle's opinion, then, is an epic; the _Cypria_, the _Heracleis_, and so on, are _not_ epics, but rather are versified chronicles. In Mr. Murray's opinion, too, the _Iliad_ is an epic, the _Cypria_ is "an old chronicle poem." But this only proves, to his mind, that the _Iliad_ is the further developed.[10] "They grew together side by side" or centuries; but the _Iliad_, as we have it, is, he thinks, of later and more accomplished art. Mr. Murray writes: "In its actual working up, however, our _Iliad_ has reached a further stage of development than the ordinary run of poetic chronicles, if I may use the term."[11]

Now, as far as analogy serves our turn, the "poetic chronicle" is in a _later_ stage of development than the epic. Thus Barbour's _The Brus_, or the Argonautic poem of the very late Apollonius, is in a much later stage of development than the old Germanic epics, or _Beowulf_, which selects two main events from the career of the hero. Again, versified chronicles in France are much later in development than the epic, the _Chanson de Roland_, "The Wrath of Ganelon."

However, as analogies are never satisfactory, let us be content to note that the _Iliad_ confessedly differs in character from the _Cypria_, as the epic differs from the verse-chronicle. On this point von Wilamowitz Moellendorff appears to agree, as does Mr. Murray, who studies the subject in the spirit of the learned German. To repeat his statement, he writes, "These various books or masses of tradition in verse form were growing up side by side for centuries."[12]

Now, "masses of tradition" certainly grew up through many centuries, before and after Homer's time; but the _Iliad_ is not merely "a mass of tradition." It is a splendid work of art, fashioned, in our view, by a great poet, out of masses of tradition, while what we know of the _Cypria_ is a compilation, partly from hints in the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_, with popular tales or _Märchen_ thrown in; and is animated by a distinct _tendenz_, a partisan desire to debase the favourite heroes of Homer, and to exalt a hero, Palamedes, who, to myself, seems intended to represent the Ionian share in the Trojan war, neglected as it is by Homer. To justify these criticisms as most probable on the evidence, it is necessary to offer an analysis of the _Cypria_, as far as its contents are known to us from fragments and epitomes.

The _Cypria_ opened thus: Zeus takes counsel on the problem of over-population. He "resolves to relieve of her burden Earth that nourishes all, by raising the great strife of the Ilian war, that death may lighten the weight: the heroes were slain in Troyland, _but the Will of Zeus was accomplished._"[13]

The following account of the early part of the _Cypria_ is given by the Scholiast in the famous "Venice A" manuscript of the _Iliad_. He enters here into more details than Proclus in his epitome of the work. "They say that Earth, burdened by the abundance of men, all impious as they were, prayed to Zeus to be relieved. Zeus then caused the Theban war, whereby he destroyed many. Later again he called Momus (Mockery) into council, 'the counsel of Zeus,' Homer styles it, though he might have destroyed the human race altogether by deluges and thunderbolts. But Momus prevented this, and suggested to Zeus the marriage of Thetis with a mortal, and the begetting of a beautiful daughter from these two causes arose war involving both Hellenes and barbarians, from which time Earth was lightened of her burden, so many men were slain. The narrative is by Stasinus, the author of the _Cypria_..."[14]

In this version Themis is not mentioned as the adviser of Zeus; perhaps she suggested the Theban, and Momus the Trojan war.

In the epitome of Proclus, Eris (Strife) comes among the Gods at the bridal feast of Peleus and Thetis. Of this feast one detail remains in a fragment of the _Cypria,_ which the Scholiast gives in prose. Cheiron the Centaur cut an ash-tree for a spear, as a wedding present to Peleus. Athene polished it, and Hephaestus forged the point. This spear, which Achilles alone could wield, is mentioned as the gift of Cheiron to Achilles in the _Iliad_ (xvi. 143, 144, and xix. 389-90). If, then, we find in the _Cypria_ decisive proof that there it is later than the _Iliad_, we may suppose the author to borrow here from our Homer, and to add the previous division of labour in the spear-making. As a bronze-smith Hephaestus only makes the metal point of the weapon. At the bridal feast, Eris rouses a dispute between Aphrodite, Athene, and Hera as to superiority in beauty.

To return to the Epitome of Proclus. The three contending goddesses are led by Hermes to Mount Ida, and Paris pronounces Aphrodite to be the most beautiful; he has been won by her promise of Helen as his wife. This is suggested by _Iliad_, xxiv. 29, 30, where the passage, according to some, suggests that all three goddesses _wooed_ Paris, and that he preferred Aphrodite. But this is wholly out of keeping with the Greek conception of Hera and Athene; and the lines in _Iliad_, xxiv., must refer to the cause of the ferocity with which these two slighted goddesses persecute Troy, though Athene was its patron. No other cause has been adduced.

The counsel of Zeus could not have caused the Trojan war merely by making the goddesses quarrel. It was necessary to beget "the beautiful daughter," whom Aphrodite was to offer as a bride to Paris. According to the Cypria, this fairest of women, Helen, wife of Menelaus, was not the daughter of Zeus and Leda, but of Zeus and Nemesis; in Homer, Nemesis is little more than the emotion of virtuous indignation, she is not, as in the Cypria, a chaste and pretty nymph, "fair-tressed Nemesis." Her does Zeus pursue and, says the inept author of the Cypria, "the feelings of Nemesis were torn by shame and nemesis" (indignation). Mr. Murray devotes eight pages to the ethical meaning of Αὶδώς (shame) and of Νέμεσις (righteous indignation).[15] Surely we must recognise a great difference in manner between Homer, to whom nemesis means "righteous indignation," and the author of the _Cypria_, to whom Nemesis is a fair-tressed nymph? Homer, it is true, knows _themis_ as customary law, and _Themis_, a goddess. But _she_ is not a fair-tressed being who flees from her lover in a series of animal disguises.

Later Greeks, puzzled by the contending versions of our Homer and of the _Cypria_, declared that Nemesis was, indeed, the mother of Helen, but that Leda, wife of Tyndareus, was her foster-mother and brought her up.[16] Meanwhile Nemesis, in the _Cypria_, is not a mere personification of the sentiment of nemesis, or righteous indignation, but is, as we know, "a concrete figure of ancient Attic tradition," "a primitive goddess of Rhamnus," in Attica, associated with, or a local form of, "the wild Artemis" of pre-Achaean religion, "with deep roots in local worship." Nemesis had a famous statue at Rhamnus, attributed by Pausanias to Pheidias; a fragment of the face, in the British Museum, proves that it was at least of the school of Pheidias. She held in her hand a spray of the apple-tree, an attribute of Aphrodite, and the stag of Artemis was an ornament of her crown. She was also "a queen over death and the dead," a chthonic characteristic.[17] The Nemesis of Rhamnus was thus like the very primitive Artemis of Brauron in Attica. At Smyrna, where the population was very mixed, Pausanias mentions two Nemeses.[18]

We see that all this of Nemesis, in the _Cypria_, is at once apart as the poles from the Nemesis of Homer, virtuous indignation personified, and is also an Ionian celebration of an Attic goddess of the pre-Achaean faith.

In the _Cypria_, Aphrodite, mother of Aeneas (in Homer), sends him with Paris. Landing in Lacedaemon, Paris is welcomed by the brothers of Helen, and in Sparta by Menelaus, who then sails to Crete. (Different reasons for this voyage are given by later writers.) Paris then seduces Helen, _who is brought to him by Aphrodite_ (as in _Iliad_, iii.); _they take away property of Menelaus_ (as in _Iliad_, vii.). (The _italics_ mark probable hints from the _Iliad_.)

The pair are wedded in Troy, where the story leaves them, and very needlessly goes back to Lacedaemon. Here are Helen's brothers, Castor and Polydeuces, who fall into a feud about cattle with Idas and Lynceus, the keen-eyed. Lynceus is merely the Keen-Eye, who can see through everything, a common personage in _Märchen._ The brothers of Helen hide themselves in a hollow tree, but Lynceus climbs to the crest of Mount Taygetus and "looks over all the isle of Pelops," that is, Peloponnesus. Homer never speaks of the country as a geographical unity, nor uses the word "Peloponnesus"; this is manifestly a post-Homeric term.[19] Idas slays Castor; Polydeuces slays both Lynceus and Idas, and Zeus assigns to Castor and Polydeuces immortality on alternate days. This is wholly unknown to the _Iliad_, both heroes are dead and buried in _Iliad_, iii. 243, 244. Their alternate immortality with their divine honours, mentioned in _Odyssey_, xi. 298-304, may be an interpolation (a kind of footnote in verse); it is, at all events, non-Iliadic. Homer knows the deaths of the two brothers, at home in Lacedaemon: we cannot tell whether he knew about the Keen-Eye of _Märchen_, Lynceus.

In the _Cypria_, Menelaus is now informed, in Crete, about the flight of Helen: he returns to the isle of Pelops and consults Agamemnon about collecting an army. Nestor, called to council, abounds in anecdotic digressions (whether the author borrows this trait from the _Iliad_ or the _Iliad_ from him, it is not hard to guess!). Among Nestor's themes--for he simply poured out stories--are Epopeus and his seduction of the daughter of Lycus; Oedipous; the madness of Heracles; and the tale of Theseus (whom Homer steadily avoids), and Ariadne. Theseus, as an Athenian, is dear to the Ionian poet: Homer ignores him.

The Atridae go through Greece collecting the heroes. Odysseus feigns madness with a view to shirking the war; he ploughs the sand, and Palamedes detects his sanity by placing the child Telemachus in the way of the plough. Here we have a hero, Palamedes, unknown to Homer, and an equally unknown Odysseus who is a coward, but is baffled by the superior wisdom of Palamedes. It is obvious that the poet of the _Cypria_ is here introducing an un-Homeric character to serve his private ends: his methods are unveiled in