questions, she goes on unasked to name Idomeneus. Lachmann, whose mind is full of the ballad manner, fastens upon this as an irregularity “ The unskilful transition from Ajax to Idomeneus, about from no question had been asked, ” he cannnot attribute to the original poet of the lay (Belzaclllungcn, p 15 ed. 1865). But as nas pointed out bi A Romerl this is exactly the variation which a poet would introduce to relieve the primitive ba//ad-lzl2e sameness of question and ansvser, and moreover it forms the transition to the lines about the Dioscuri by which the scene ls s0 touchingly brought to a close.

1/ralogzrs -T he development of epic poetry (properly so called) out of the oral songs or ballads of a country is a process u h1ch in the nature of things can seldom be observed It secms clear, houever, that the by pothesxs of epics such as the Iliad and O/iyss/'f llZll1g been formed by putting together or even by wo1L1ng up shorter poems finds no support from analogy. N arratlve poetry of great interest is found in several countries (such as Spam and Servia), in which it has never attained to the epic stage. In 8cand1navia, in Lithuania, in Russia, according to Gaston Paris (Hzsfnire poétzque de Charlemagne, p. 9), the national songs haxe been arrested in a form which may be called intermediate betu een contemporary poetry and the epic. The true epics are those of I ndia, Persia Greece, Germany, Britain and P rance Most of these, however, fail to afford any useful points of comparison either from their utter unl1leness to Homer, or because there IS 110 evidence of the existence of anterior popular songs The most instructive perhaps the only instructive, paiallel IS to be found in the French “ chansons de geste, ” of wi hich the Chansozz de Roland is the earliest and best example. hese poems are traced back with much probability to the 10th century. 'lhcv are epic 1n character, and were recited by professional jnngleurs (who may be compared to the dotdoi of Homer). But as early as the 7th century we come upon ttaces of short lavs (the so-called cantilenes) which were in the mouths of all and nere sung in chorus. It has been held that the chansons de geste were formed by joining together “ bunches ” of these earlier cantilenes, and this wzs the view taken by Léon Gautier 111 the first e lxtxon of Les Epopées frangazses (1865) In the sccond edition, of uhich the first volume appeared in 1878, he abandoned this theory. He believes that the epics uere generally composed under the influence of earlier songs. Our first epic poets, ” he says, “ did not actually and materially patch together pre-existent cantilenes They were only inspired bv these popular songs; they only borrowed from them the traditional and legendary elements. In short, they took nothing from them but the ideas, the spirit, the life, they 'found (ils ont tiouvé) all the rest ” (p. So). But he admits that “ some of the old poems may have been borrowed from trad1t10n. Without any intermediary ” (zbid), and when it is considered that the traces of the " cantilénes ” are slight, and that the degree in which they inspired the later poetry must be a matter of impression rathcr than of proof, it does not surprise us to find other scholars (notably Paul Meyer) attaching less importance to them, or even doubting their existence 2

hen Leon Gautier shows how history passes into legend,

and legend again n1to romance, we are reminded of the difference 1 Die eaegelfaschen Sclzolzen der Ilzas, p. vii = ()n comprend que des chants popalaires nés d'un événement 61 lat int vu toire on défaite, puissent eontrxbuer a former la tradition, a 1 n 1rr€ter les traits; ils peuvent aussi devemr le centre de légendes qui se forment pour les exphquer; et de la sorte leur substance au mom- ar11e au poete épxque qui l'introdu1t dans sa composition. o1la ce qui a pu se produxre pour de chants tres-courts, dont il est d aillcuf- aussi difficile d'affirmer que de nier Vexistence. Mais on peut exphquer la formation des chansons de geste par une autre hypo these (Meyer, Reclzerches sur l'é¢popée f7ll{l§ ¢1/LSE, p. 65). “ Ce qui a lait naitre la théorxe des chants lyrico-épxques ' on des cantilénes, c est lc s steme de Wolf sur les poemes homeriques, et de Lachmann sur les Nzbelungen. Mais, au moins en ce qui concerne ce dernier pocme, le systeme est détruit .... On tire encore argument des rcmances espagnoles, qui, dit-on, sont des 'cantllenes ' non encore arm ées a Vépopée. . Et c'est le malheur de cette théorie: faute de prcuves directes, elle cherche des analogies au dehors; en Espagne, cllc trou e des ' cantllenesf mais as d'6popée, en Allemagne, une épope ULIB p is de cantilenes l ' Flbzd p 66)

MER

1 noticed above between the Iliad and the Odyssey, and between Horner and the early Cyclic poems And the peculiar degradation of Homeric characters which appears 111 some poets (especially Euripides) finds a parallel in the later chansons de geste The comparison of llomer u ith the great liteiary epics calls for more discursive treatment than would be in place here. Some external differences have been already indicated. Like the French epics, Homeric poetry is indigenous, and is distinguished by this fact, and by the ease of D'1OV'l'Y1€l1l and the simplicity which result from it, from poets such as Virgil, Dante a11d Milton. It IS also d1st1ngu1shed from tl1e111 by the comparative absence of underlying motives or sentiment. In V1rgil's poetry a sense of the greatness of Rome and Italy is the leading motive of a passionate rhetoric, partly veiled by the “chosen 1 delicacy ” of his la11guage. Dante and Milton are still more faithful exponents of the religion and politics of their time. Even the French epics are pervaded by the sentiment of fear and hatred of the Saracens. But in Homer the interest is purely dramatic. There 1S no strong antipathy of race or religion, the war turns on no political event, the capture of Troy lies outside the range of the Iliad. Even the hcroes are not the chief national heroes of Greece. The interest hes wholly (so far as we can see) 1n the picture of human action and feeling. B1BL1oGRL>1-tv -A complete bibliography of Homer would fill iolumes The following list ls intended to include those books only wlnch are of first-rate importance.

The edfllw prznceps of Homer, published at Florence in 1488, by Demetrius Chalcondylas, and the Aldine editions of 1504 and 1517, have still some value beyond that of curiosity The chief modern critical editions are those of Wolf (Halle, 1794-1 79%, Leipzig, 1804-1807), bpitzner (Gotha, T832-1836), Bekker (Ber in, 1843, Bonn, 1858), La Roche (Odyssey, 1867-1868, I/md, 1873-1876, both at Leipzig); Ludwxch (Odyssey, Leipzig 1889 1891, Ilflad, 2 vols, 1901 and 1907): W Leaf (llzad, London, 1886-1888, Qnd ed 1900-1902), Merry and Riddell (Odyssey 1-YU., 2Il(i ed, Oxford, 1886); Monro (Odyssey xin -xxiv. with appendices, Oxford, 1901); Monro 1 and Allen (llflad), and Allen (Odyssey, 1908, Oxford) The C0111mentaries of Barnes, Clarke and Ernestx are practically superseded; but Heyne's Ilflad (Leipzig, 1802) and N1tzsch's commentary on the Odyssey (books 1-xn, Hanover, 1826-1840) are still usefu . Nagelbaclfs Anmerkungen zur Ilflas (A, B 1 483, 1') is of great value, especially the third edition (by Autenrieth, luren1berg, 1864) The unique bcholfla Veneta on the Ilzad wele first made known by Villolson (Homerz Ilflas ad vetens codfmv Venelz fidem recensfltd, Scholza m sam antflquflssflma ex eodem codzce alwsque nuns przmum edzdlt, cum Aslerrsczs, Obelflsczs, alusque .sflgms crzlflcfls, Joh. Bdplzsla Caspar d'/lnsse de Vzlloflson, Venice, 1788), reprinted, with many additions from other MSS, by Bekker (Sc/zolza za Homerfl Ilfladem, Berlin, 1825-1826). A new edition has been published by the Oxford Press (Scholza Graeca zn Homerfl Ilflddem, ed Gul Dmdorhus); six volumes have appeared (1875-1888), the last two edited by Professor E. Maass The vast commentary of Eustathius was 51st printed at Rome in 1542, the last edition is that of Stallbaum (Leipzig, 1827) The bcholxa on the Odyssey were published by Buttmann (Berlin, 182I), and with greater approach to completeness by W Dindorf (Oxford, 1855). Although Wolf at once perceived the value of the Venetian Schoha on the Iliad, the first scholar who thoroughly explored them was C. Lehrs (De Arzslarchz smdws Ifomerfms, Konigsberg, 1833' 2nd ed Leipzig, 1865) Of the studies in the same field which have appeared since, the most important are Aug. Nauck, Arflstophams Byzanlfn fragment (Halle, 1848); L. Friedlandcr, /lmsiomcz 1r¢pi annetwv 'I7ca5os relflqmae (Gottmgen, 1853); M Schmidt, Dfldymfl Chalcenlew fragmenla (Leipzig, 1854); L. Friedlandcr, Nflcanons vrcpi '1>tam5s UTI."//J.7'iS ffelflgmde (Berlin, 1857); Aug. Lentz, Herodzam Techmcz relzqmae (Leipzig, 1867); . La Roche, Dfle homerflsche Texlkrmk zm Allerlhum (Leipzig, 1866 and Homerflsche Unlersuchungen (Leipzig, 1869), Ad. Romer, Dze Werke der Arzstarcheef /lm Cod Venet A. (Munich, 1875), A Ludwich, Arzslarclfs Homemsche Textkrmk (2 vols Leipzig, 1884-1885); and Dze Homervulgala als 'vor-Aleicandrzmsch erwflesen (Leipzig, 1898) The literature of the “ Homeric Question " begins practically with Wolf's Prolegomena (Halle, 1795) Of the earlier books Wood's Essay on the Ongfmal Gemus and U/'rLl'mgs of Homer is the most interesting. Wolf's News were skilfully popularized 1n W Muller's Homerflsche Vorschule (2nd ed, Leipzig, 1836). G Hermann's dissertations De 'mlerpolatzombus Homem (1832) and De 'deratzs apud Homerum (1840) are reprinted in his Opuscula. Lachmann's two papers (Belrachlungen uber Homefs Ilflaa) were edited together by M Haupt (2nd ed, Berlin, 1865) Besides the somen hat voluminous writings of Nitzsch, and the discussions contained in the histories of Greek literature by K. O Muller, Bernhardy, Ulricl and Th. Bergk, and in (, rote's Hflslory of Greece, see V/elcker, Der epflsche

3 A Lang, Conlfmporary Remew, vol xvii, N S, p 588.