in antiquity, has iather told against him with modern scholars.', It is chieflv interesting as a proof of the confusion in which the text must have been before the Alexandrian times; for it is impossible to understand the readiness of Aristarchus to suspect the genuineness of verses unless the state of the co ies had pointed to the existence of numerous interpolations. On this mattei, however, we are left to conjecture.

Our knowledge of Alexandrian criticism is derived almost wholly from a single document, the famous Ilzad of the library of St Mark in Venice (Codex Venetus 454, or Ven. A), first published by the French scholar Villoison in 1788 (Scholza antzquzsszma ad Homeri Ilzadem). This manuscript, written in the 10th century, contains (1) the best text of the Iliad, (2) the critical marks of Ar1starchus and (5) Schoha, consisting mainly of extracts from four grammatical works, iz. Didy mus (contemporary of Cicero) on the recension of Aristarchus, Aristonicus (fl. 24 B.c.) on the critical marks of Aristarchus, Herodian (fl. A.D. 160) on the accentuation, and Nicanor (fl. A D 127) on the punctuation, of the Ilzad.

These extracts present themselves in two distinct forms. One series of scholia IS written in the usual way, on a margin reserved for the purpose. The other consists of brief schol1a, written in very small characters (but of the same period) on the narrow space left vacant round the text. Occasionally a scholium of this kind gives the substance of one of the longer extracts; but as a rule they are distinct. It would seem, therefore, that after the manuscript was finished the “marginal schoha ” were discovered to be extremely defective, and a new series of extracts was added in a form which interfered as little as possible with the appearance of the book.” The mention of the Venetian Scholia leads us at once to the Homeric controversy; for the immortal Prolegomena of F. A. Wolf 3 appeared a few years after V1ll01SOHlS publication, and was founded in great measure upon the flesh and abundant materials which it furnished. Not that the “ Wolhan theory ” of the Homeric poems is directlv supported by anything in the Schoha; the immediate obycct of the Prolegomena was not to put forward that theory, but to elucidate the new and remarkable conditions under which the tet of Homer had to be settled, viz. the discovery of an apparatus crmcus of the 2nd century B.C. The questions regarding the original structure and early history of the poems were raised (forced upon him, it may be said) by the critical problem; but they were really originated by facts and ideas of a wholly different order. The 18th century, in which the spirit of classical correctness had the most absolute dominion, d1d not come to an end before a powerful reaction set in, h1ch affected not only literature but also speculation anfl politics In this movement the leading ideas were concentrated in the ord Nature. The natural condition of society, natural law, natural religion, the poetry of nature, gainedasingular hold, first on the English philosophers from Hume onwards, and then (through Rousseau chiefly) on the eneral drift of thought and action in Europe. In literature the effect of these ideas was to set up a false opposition between nature and art. As political writers imagined a patriarchal innocence prior to codes of law, so men of letters sought in popular unwritten poetrv the freshness and simplicity which were wanting in the prevailing styles. The blind minstrel was the counterpart of tht noble say age The supposed discovery of the poems of Ossian fell in with this train of scnt1ment, and created an enthusiasm for the stud of earlv popular poetrv Homer was soon drawn into the circle of inquiry Blackwell (Professor of Greek at Aberdeen) had insisted, in a book published in 1735, on the “naturalness” of Homer; and

ood (Essax on the Orzgmal Genzus of Homer, London, 1769) was the

first who maintained that Homer composed without the help of

ritmg, and supported his thesis by ancient authority, and also by

the parallel of Ossian. Both these books were translated into German, and their ideas passed into the popular philosophy of the da Everything in short was ripe for the reception of a book that brought together, with masterly ease and vigour, the old and the new Homeric learning, and drew from it the historical proof that Homer was no single poet, writing according to art and rule, but a name which stood for a golden age of the true spontaneous poetry of genius and nature.

The part of the Prolegomena which deals with the original form of the Homeric poems occupies pp xl -clx. (in the first edition). Wolf shows how the question of the date of writing meets us on the 1 Qee the chapter in Cobet's Mzscellanetl crztzca, pp. 225-239. 2 l'he estence of two groups of the Venetian Scholia was first noticed by Jacob La Roche, and they were first distinguished in the edition of W Dindorf (Oxford, 1875). There is also a group of Qchoha, chiefly exegetical, a collection of which was published by llo1son from a lb Ven. 453 (s. xi.) in his edition of 1788, and has been again edited by W. Dindorf (Oford, 1877). The most important collection of this group is contained in the Codex Townlemnus (Burney 86 s. xi) of the British Museum, edited by E, Maass, |L)xford, 1887»1888). The vast commentary of Eustathius (of the 12th century) marks a third stage in the progress of ancient Homeric earning

“ Pro7eg0mena ad Homerum, swe de operum Homericorum pmsca el QCPIIHIIJ forma varwsque mutalwmbus et probabzlz fatzone emendandz. xt ripsit rixd Aug. 'Wolf1us, volumen i. (1795)

threshold of the textual criticism of Homer and accordingly enters into a full discussion, first of the external evidence, then of the indications furnished by the poems. Having satisfied himself that writing was unknown to Homer, he is led to consider the real mode of transmission, and finds this in the Rhapsodists, of whom the Homeridae were an hereditary school. And then comes the conclusion to which all this has been tending: “the die is cast”-the Ilzad and Odyssey cannot have been composed in the form in which we know them without the aid of writing. They must therefore have been, as Bentlely had said, “ a sequel of songs and rhapsodies, " “ loose songs not col ected together in the form of an epic poem till about 500 years after.” This conclusion he then supports by the character attributed to the “ Cyclic " poems (whose want of unity showed that the structure of the Ilzad and Odyssey must be the work of a later time), by one or two indications of imperfect connexion, and by the doubts of ancient critics as to the genuineness of certain parts. These, however, are matters of conjecture. “ Historia loquitur." The voice of antiquity IS unanimous in declaring that “ Peisistratus first committed the poems of Homer to writing, and reduced them to the order in which we now read them." The appeal of Wolf to the “ voice of all antiquity " is by no means borne out by the different statements on the subjcct. According to Heraclides Ponticus (pupil of Plato), the poetry of Homer was first brought to the Peloponnesus by Lycurgus, who obtained it from the descendants of Creophylus (Polzt. fr. 2). Plutarch in his Life of Lycurgus (c. 4) repeats this story, with the addition that there was already a faint report of the poems in Greece, and that certain detached fragments were in the possession of a few persons. Again, the Platonic dialogue Hzpparchus (which though not genuine is probably earlier than the Alexandrian times) asserts that Hipparchus, son of Peisistratus. first brought the poems to Athens, and obliged the rhapsodises at the Panathenaea to follow the order of the text, “ as they still do, " instead of reciting portions chosen at will. The earliest authority for attributing any work of the kind to Peisistratus IS the well-known passage of Cicero (De Orat. 3 34' “ Quis doctior eisdem temporibus illis, aut cuj us eloquentia litteris instructor fuisse trad1tur quam Pisistrati? qui primus Homeri libros, confusos antea, sic disposuisse d1citur ut nunc habemus ). To the same effect Pausanias (vu. p. 594) says that the change of the name Donoessa to Gonoessa (in Il u. 573) was thought to have been made by “ Peisistratus or one of his companions, " when he collected the poems, which were then in a fragmentary condition. Finally, Diogenes Laertius (1. 57) says that Solon made a law that the poems should be recited with the help of a prompter so that each rhapsodise should begin where the last left off; and he argues from this that Solon did more than Peisistratus to make Homer known. The argument is directed against a certain Dieuchidas of Megara, who appears to have maintained that the verses about Athens in the Catalogue (Il. 11. 546-556) were interpolated by Peisistratus. The passage is unfortunately corrupt, but it is at least clear that in the time of Solon, according to Diogenes, there were complete copies of the poems, such as could be used to control the recitations. Hence the account of Diogenes is quite irreconcilable with the notices on which Wolf relied. It IS needless to examine the attempts which have been made to harmonize these accounts. Such attempts usually start with the tacit assumption that each of the persons concerned-Lycurgus, Solon, Peisistratus, Hipparchus-must have done something for the text of Homer, or for the regulation of the rhapsodises. But we have first to consider whether any of the accounts come to us on such evidence that we are bound to consider them as containing a nucleus of truth.

In the first place, the statement that Lycurgus obtained the poems from descendants of Creoph lus must be admitted to be purely mythical. But if we reyect it, have we any better reason for believing the parallel assertion in the Platonic Hzpparchus? It is true that Hipparchus is undoubtedly a real person. On the other hand it is evident that the Peisistratidae soon became the subject of many fables. Thucydides notices as a popular mistake the belief that Hipparchus was the eldest son of Peisistratus, and that consequently he was the reigning “tyrant ” when he was killed by Aristogiton. The Platonic Hzpparchus follows this erroneous version, and may therefore be regarded as representing (at best) mere local tradition. We may reasonably go further, and see in this part of the dialogue a piece of historical romance, designed to put the “tyrant " family in a favourable light, as patrons of literature and learning., Again, the account of the Hipparchus is contradicted by Diogenes Laertius, who says that Solon provided for the due recitation of the Homeric poems. The only good authorities as to this point are the orators Lycurgus and Isocrates, who mention the law prescribing the recitation, but do not say when or by whom it was enacted. The inference seems a fair one, that the author of the law was really unknown.

Vi/'ith regard to the statements which attribute some work in connexion with Homer to Peisistratus, it was noticed by Wolf that Cicero, Pausanias and the others who mention the matter do so 'nearly fm the same words, and, therefore, appear to have drawn from a common s0urce. This source was in all probability an epigram quoted in to of the short lives of Homer, and there said to have been inscribed on the statue of Peisistratus at Athens in it Peisisfratus is made to

say of himself that he “collected Homer, who was formerly sono