Murray's Ancient Greek Literature a History of Ancient Greek Literature

The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

Murray's Ancient Greek Literature A History of Ancient Greek Literature. By Gilbert Murray, M.A., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, etc. London: William Heinemann, 1897.

A. W. Verrall

The Classical Review / Volume 12 / Issue 02 / March 1898, pp 107 - 111 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00025592, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00025592

How to cite this article: A. W. Verrall (1898). The Classical Review, 12, pp 107-111 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00025592

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 155.198.30.43 on 16 Mar 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 107

NOTE ON HOKACE, OD. II. 17, 29.

HORACE, Odes II. xvii. 29. Faunus...JI/er- Add that Horace was a poet, and compare curialium Custos virorum. the following passage from The Secrets of This expression has much perplexed the Albertus Magnus, etc., London, 1632. commentators. Page says: ' In no case ' Mercurius governeth in mannes body the can the phrase viri Mercuriales be called a tung, memory, cogitation, handes, and happy one, as a periphrasis for " poets."' thighs. He hath dominion over the phrensy, And the last editor, Dr. Gow, writes: madnesse, melancholy, Falling sicknesse, ' This allusion is obscure.' It is only ob- Cough, Rheume, and the abundance of scure because the study of astrology has distilling spittle. If hee be Lord of the died out. This Ode teems with astrological nativity, hee maketh the children stoute, allusions, of which I may say more presently. wise, and apt to learne, modest, secret, and For the moment let me quote only eloquent. Of person small, leane, pale of visage : smooth heared: faire eyed : hard Corporis exigui, praecanum, solibus aptum, and bony handed.' Thus Mercurialium here Irasci celerem, tamen ut placabilis essem. will be comparable to the original use of Epistles I. xx. 24. jovial, saturnine. Ego...lippus.—Sat. I. v. 30. Cui concredere nugas... If Horace imagined that Mercury was the rimosa in aure... Lord of his nativity, we shall see a particular scilicet egregii mortalem altique silenti. reason for his address to that god in Odes Sat. II. vi. 43, 46, 57. I. 10. Cena ministratur pueris tribus. T. NlCKLIN. Sat. I. vi. 116.

MUERAY'S ANCIENT GREEK LITERATURE.

A History of Ancient Greek Literature. By it, good or defective, that is to say, just in GILBERT MURRAY, M.A., Professor of proportion as the subject in question lends Greek in the University of Glasgow, etc. or does not lend itself to this individual London: William Heinemann, 1897. and, as it were, familiar manner of treat- ment. We shall expect to find a stimula- IT would be easy to find in this book, and ting presentment of Pindar, Herodotus, in any book of equal scope, abundant ma- Thucydides, Aristophanes, Isocrates. We terials either for favourable or unfavourable shall be less hopeful about Sophocles or judgment, for assent or dissent, if either of Demosthenes. We see that the writer is these, merely as such, could be supposed in- determined to be vivid, perhaps at some teresting to serious students. The author's risk, and we shall not be surprised if occa- tendency, his method and habit, is described sionally he seems rather to ask whether a by himself candidly and correctly in the phrase or an illustration is striking, than preface (p. xiii.) : whether it is exactly appropriate.1 The reader who turns to Pindar or Thucydides I have tried—at first unconsciously, afterwards of can scarcely fail to find Professor Murray set purpose—to realise, as well as I could, what sort suggestive, and it is possible (as I can of men the various Greek authors were, what they liked and disliked, how they earned their living and warrant) that he will feel warm gratitude. spent their time. Of course it is only in the Attic The reader who turns to Sophocles will not, period, and perhaps in the exceptional case of unless he is exceptional in his tastes, Pindar, that such a result can be even distantly allow Professor Murray for an absolute approached, unless history is to degenerate into fiction. But the attempt is helpful, even where it guide, and it is not impossible that he will leads to no definite result. be angry. In general the poets seem to attract the author more than the prose- The book is just what, upon these lines, an able writer might be expected to make 1 See, for example, pp. 60, 156, 171. 108 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. writers, and with the orators in particular to the time from which they date, he re- he does not profess a keen sympathy. For presents the present orthodoxy, if orthodoxy my own broad judgment it is enough to say there is. It is not indeed always easy (and that I have read the book four or five for good reasons) to discover exactly what times, and each time, as I thought, with the makers of the Cycle, Dionysius, or much profit.. Apollodorus, or whoever they were, are I mention summarily a few of the points upon this hypothesis supposed to have done. which should be considered or reconsidered. But it is, I believe, generally understood The effect of the Ionian dispersion upon that from what they did the Cycle derived Athens (p. 18), though justly emphasized, its unity as well as its name, and that to seems to be post-dated. It must have begun Aristotle, for example, or Plato, or Herod- at all events from 540 B.C. 'Theognis of otus, neither thing nor title was known. Megara.' Which Theognis t And of which Professor Murray therefore is justified, for Megara ? But perhaps Professor Murray the purpose of his book, in assuming this, does not think that this recent doubt has more especially as he gives to the attentive substance in it. The development and reader a sufficient hint that it is open to especially the beginnings of rhetoric need to question, when he remarks that Athenaeus, be more fully and precisely treated, and the thechief or sole ancient author, whose opinion same perhaps may be said of 'sophistic' appears in his account, made 'the odd It is a curious illustration of this point that mistake' of supposing the word ' cycle' to the name of Gorgias (pp. 160, 163) ap- mean the original poems. It would scarcely parently steals into the narrative without have been consistent with proportion to any special and distinctive notice at all. find room at the present moment and in Is it known that the odes of the great such a summary for the view, hinted rather melic poets were given by ' professional than advanced by Otto Seeck in the Quetten performers' (p. 95) i How does this ap- der Odyssee, that the Epic Cycle, the Cycle pear ? Of Stesimbrotus even one page mentioned by Athenaeus, Suidas, Proclus, seems too much, and that page (if I may and others, was the very oldest monument say so) too ' vivid '. And something some- of Greek bibliography; that it dated not where should if possible be curtailed to from the first or the second century before make more room for Plato, for Aristotle Christ, but from the sixth, and that it was perhaps, and certainly for Theocritus and nothing more or less than the Greek epos for Lucian. (or in popular parlance 'the poetry of Homer') thrown into a quasi-historical It is manifestly impossible to discuss form by the first collectors of it, acting here, in such a manner as will be either under the auspices of the successive rulers interesting or profitable to the readers of of Athens before, during, and after the the Review, more than one, if so much as reign of Pisistratus. one, of the many questions which must be raised by a general history of Greek litera- Nevertheless, before the 'Homeric ques- ture. And as the beginning is not a bad tion ' can be properly treated, room will place to begin, I shall make no apology for have to be found somewhere for discussing devoting the rest of this article to some this view, and discussing it thoroughly. If remarks upon Professor Murray's view of it has not sufficient evidence to justify a the ' epic cycle '. As a whole, his account positive affirmation, it has at any rate all of Homer and the Homeric question fulfils, the evidence that there is. As to how, and better than could be expected, the exceed- ab what points, the Cycle should be divided, ingly difficult task of presenting the problem, what were the proper titles of the con- in the present phase of discussion, to readers stituent parts, and to what authors these who are to be presumed incapable of in- parts, when detached, should be respectively dependent judgment. Nor is he to be assigned ; on these points there was, among blamed, whatever may be the historic truth the scholars of antiquity, a great diversity of the matter, for stating or assuming of opinion. The criticisms, which have been (pp. 9, 45) that the Cycle had no higher made by modern scholars upon the account origin than a compilation or compilations of the Cycle in Proclus, prove at any rate of the Alexandrian age. He is perhaps this: see pp. 44 foil, of Professor Murray's heretical when he says (if I understand him book. Indeed it is certain that the very, rightly) that these abstracts or compendia notion of providing the various parts of it of legend were from the first merely prose, with named authors was. of late origin and and not even adaptations or arrangements the product of erudite or quasi-erudite criti- of the original narratives in verse. But as cism. There is no proof that in the fifth THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 109 century the names of Stasinus, Hagias, to investigate such questions, suggests that Lesches, and the rest were so much as there was some strong prima facie ground known, much less known as authors of the for the opinion which he rejects, the opinion Cycle or any portion of it. To Herodotus that Iliad, Odyssey, Cypria, and Epigoni ' the Cypria' and ' the Epigoni' were already had all one and the same origin. It has 'not Homer', but he was content, so far as even been observed with truth, and must appears, to leave them anonymous; and not be forgotten, that the titles 'Cypria' anonymous, as is well shown by Wilamowitz and ' Epigoni/ as used by Herodotus, prove in his Homerische Untersuchungen, they con- nothing as to the actual independent ex- tinued to be reckoned by prudent scholars, istence of poems so called, any more than notwithstanding the fluctuating, and, so far the similar use of 'the Feet-washing,' or as we know, quite arbitrary attribution of ' the Exploits of Diomede' proves that them to sundry personages, not reasonably these parts of the Odyssey and the Iliad suspected of being themselves fictitious. had an independent existence. All alike But what every ancient author, from He- would appear to have been in origin mere rodotus downwards, agrees in and assumes distinctions for reference beween different is this, that all parts of the Cycle, by whom- parts of the epic history. In short, Hero- soever composed, descended from the primi- dotus speaks exactly as he would do, if the tive ages of Greek literature, that all of Cycle, exactly such as it is described or them originated in times which we should assumed by the scholars of Alexandria now call pre-historic, or at least pre-biblio- and of the decadence, existed already in graphic. Nor, so far as I am aware, is it his time, and was then vulgarly regarded anywhere alleged by an ancient writer that as ' the poetry of Homer.' the parts of the Cycle, to the knowledge of And this, whether true or not, the any one, had ever within historic times been learned of the decadence undoubtedly be- seen in any other than their ' cyclic ' form. lieved. Athenaeus believed it, as Professor When Herodotus wishes to show that the Murray says, by ' an odd mistake.' When Cypria is not by the author of the Iliad, he he tells us that Sophocles ' enjoyed the has to fall back upon a discrepancy of detail epic cycle', and made many plays out of it, and allusion far more minute and less im- he perhaps ought to have meant and said portant than many which, as a matter of that Sophocles used many legends which fact, may be found within the Iliad itself, were worked up into an epic compilation a discrepancy such as might be paralleled made some centuries after his death ; but in almost any large piece of literature, he did plainly and admittedly mean that however uniform and carefully composed. Sophocles read with pleasure The Cycle, It is evident, therefore, that the Cypria of which he himself had also read or at least the fifth century, like the Cypria of Proclus, read about. Suidas also, or his authorities, was related to the Iliad closely and, in fact, fell oddly into the same error, in saying not otherwise than as one chapter in a. that ' the ancients (ol ap\aloi) attributed novel to another; the Cypria was already the cycle to Homer'. The date of these perfectly 'cyclic', and in this section at ' ancients' cannot, from the nature of the any rate the supposed Alexandrian com- case, be any other than the sixth century. pilers (whose operations, be it remembered, In the fifth century and later it notoriously are absolutely hypothetical and untestified), was not the serious opinion of any one had nothing to do. And already in the worth quoting that the Cycle as a whole fifth century, as in post-Alexandrian times, was by Homer ; and as to what was believed, the ' Theban cycle', or rather the Theban on matters of literary authorship, earlier part of the Cycle, which in many particulars than the sixth century, we cannot in fair- was connected with the Trojan part of it, ness and reason suppose that Suidas agreed closely with it in these particulars, imagined himself to possess information. so that the one led naturally and historically as it were, to the other. Nothing less than Still more strangely, Aristotle too, if he this can be inferred from the admission of did not know the Cycle by name, if he did Herodotus, that the Epigoni is perhaps by not know it as ' the poetry of Homer ' (and Homer, when we see upon how small a of course he did not, if until long after his pretext he can be positive that the Cypria time its component parts had not been is not. Further, the very fact that Hero- brought together and adjusted to one dotus thinks it worth while to discuss the another) used by pure accident language, " 'Homeric' authorship of these supposed which could not be better fitted than it is, works, although it is by no means his habit to lead us into the error of Athenaeus. HO. cm, VOL. xi\. That ' the poetry of Homer is a cvrde' (fj K 110 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 'Ofi/qpov iroirjcns /cweXos), and that ' the Epicsif the tradition is true, if it descends, as it are a circle ' (TO hrq KVKXOS), are propositions well may and in that case must, from the which, in well-known passages, he uses as commencement of Athenian history about premisses of a certain syllogism, happily the year 500, it cannot have been limited invented to illustrate a particular kind of to the Iliad and the Odyssey, or have re- fallacy. With all possible respect for the ferred to those poems exclusively and in authority of Mr. D. B, Monro, it is surely particular. ' The poems of Homer' at rather hard to believe, that the agreement Athens, in the sixth century and popularly of this language with the opinion of . at least for long afterwards, did not mean Athenaeus and others about the date and the Iliad and Odyssey as such; we do not origin of what they call the 'ETTIKOS KVKXOS even know that in the sixth century these is a pure coincidence, that Aristotle does titles were yet current; the ' Homer' of not refer to The Cycle at all, but to a small Athens in the sixth century extended cer- and insignificant set of verses, which had tainly far beyond these; and as we have the ' circular' quality of admitting any seen, unless positive testimony is to be change of order without injury to the sense. rejected without any positive ground, we It is urged as an argument for this, that must believe that it extended to The Circle. Aristotle could not have spoken of The And why should we not believe this ? Is Cycle as identical with 'the poetry of it not altogether probable ? At what other Homer', because in his opinion the genuine time, except the sixth century, could any poetry of Homer comprised almost nothing one have been interested in the work of beyond the Iliad and Odyssey. But why shaping, out of the varying traditions of should this opinion of Aristotle restrain reciters, an immense legendary chronicle? him from citing phrases, which are equally In the ages of erudition, in the second good, for the purpose to which he applies century, or the first, such a proceeding them, whether they are true or false 1 would surely have been futile -and perverse. " The fourth book of Moses is Numbers. By whom in that age was such a compila- Numbers are a multitude. Therefore the tion to be read, or how should it compete fourth book of Moses is a multitude." in interest, among the small circle of Would it be necessary or reasonable to scholars and poets who had leisure for the infer, from .the appearance of this, as a subject, against the original poems from fallacious syllogism, in a book of logic, which it was framed ? But in the sixth anything about the true and critical opinion century there was a plain motive for bringing of the writer upon the origin and author- the varieties of popular narration into such ship of the Hexateuch} All that Aristotle harmony and union as might be possible. implies—and this, unless we resort to some ' Homer ' was then universally supposed to artificial and recondite explanations, he be history, to represent in some fashion an does imply—is that there was some piece authentic tradition of real events. If so, of literature, known to his readers, which • to extract the real truth, by making ' a in fact did bear or had borne the three harmony', was a task both conceivable and names TO CTTJ, q '0/x.rjpov irovrjans, and KVKXOS. tempting. It was the first and obvious That this piece of literature was not step towards the production of history and identical with the 'ETTUCOS KVKXOS is possible, of literature. but it is surely in the highest degree unlikely. Lastly, upon this view we can account for one fact about The Circle, which upon any To the same conclusion point the famous other offers no little difficulty. We can statements of Cicero and Fausanias that see why it was so called. Neither its ex- ' Pisistratus ' gave to the ' works' or ' poems tent, nor its internal structure, so far as of Homer' the literary shape in which they I can see, throws any light upon its title. were preserved and known. In the copious A narrative is not circular or a circle be- modern discussion of these statements, the cause it is large, or because it is complete. first step has almost regularly been to When a certain historical or quasi-historical misrepresent and disguise them. Even compilation had once been called The Circle, Grote, a model of scrupulous accuracy, we can understand how the name, or like makes Cicero and Pausanias ' affirm that names, should have been bestowed upon Pisitratus both collected, and arranged in other summaries ; and this is all which has the existing order, the rhapsodies of the in fact been shown or explained. But why Iliad and Odyssey.' Neither passage so was the name bestowed in the first instance) much as mentions the Iliad or the Odyssey; The circumstances of the sixth century at nor can anything be more certain than that, Athens may answer this question. The THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. Ill title referred not to the form of the com- history) called Hesiod, of which later times pilation, but to the use which was to be had any real cognizance, such a theory made of it. As to the purposes to which practically means, that in that age the whole the official Athenian ' Homer' of the sixth business of poets was continuation. Doubt- «,nd fifth centuries was applied, we have less the reciters in general followed closely evidence abundant and undisputed. It was a common tradition, including, for certain framed to be recited solemnly on certain parts of their narratives, many famous and public occasions, and also—a use far more successful variations. But probability con- important—to be the staple of a new and firms authority in the assertion, that the literary type of education. It was intended, final combination "was a process distinct as we should say, to be read by public from the first composition, and that it was authority ' in churches and schools'. It performed at Athens in the sixth century. was the course which recitation and reading It will be seen that, thus interpreted, the were to follow and, when it was finished, tradition does not give us any direct in- were presumably to repeat. In short it formation respecting the points to which was the circle upon which Athenian study the ' Homeric question' is often too much was to revolve. confined, the origin and composition, that is The supposition, that the unity and con- to say, of the Iliad and the Odyssey. It is sistency of the Cycle was due in great part compatible with the tradition to suppose to harmonizing compilers, does not of course that these parts of The Circle were incor- exclude, or rather it requires, the belief that porated in it without alteration, and deter- in the mass of traditional poetry, out of mined the rest. But the foregoing sup- which the Cycle was framed, there was position will manifestly affect the spirit already a community of subjects, personages, and expectation in which we approach the incidents, style, and colour. Without this, internal evidence of the Iliad and the a harmony wpuld have been impossible; Odyssey. Much that has already been done and this, from the circumstances under in this department may be seen, as it was which the Epic narrative seems to have been seen by Seeck, in a new illumination; much, first made and circulated, it is not difficult especially in the Iliad, remains to be done. to presume. But that the corpus was actually Let these conceptions only be applied to the constructed and formed by individual literary evidence as it is presented, for example, by poets, consciously and systematically con- Grote, Professor Jebb, and Dr. Leaf ; and tinuing and completing the work of their let us see where it leads us, and whether predecessors—this appears to me incon- we are thus enabled to make further steps ceivable. There have been ages, since the towards the solution of the problem. But foundation of fixed literature, when such a this must be for another place and time. proceeding was possible and took place. But We have already run far enough, perhaps*-!, that the seventh or eighth century B.C. too far, from Professor Murray, of whom in was such an age, there is neither proof nor conclusion this may be said, that what he likelihood. And indeed, since the Cycle, writes always represents the real genuine which was vastly more than a tale of Troy, opinion and feeling of at least one competent seems to have included nearly all the poetry person. This is not a universal merit; it of the pre-bibliographic age, excepting the is not even very common. corpus (similar in character and probably in A. W. VEBBALL.

FARNELL'S CULTS OF THE GREEK STATES.

The Cults of ilie, Greek States, by L. R. as in the one which he has chosen. The FABNELL. Oxford : Clarendon Press, persons who will use the book may be 1896. Vols. 1 and 2. 32s. net. divided into two classes : those who intend to write on Greek mythology, and those MR. FABNELL has essayed a very difficult who don't. A person who belongs to the task. To perform any large enterprise in first class could be satisfied with only one scholarship to the satisfaction of every one book, viz., the one he dreams of writing is hardly possible, and probably there is no himself, or, if he has already published one, subject in which it is so entirely impossible the revised edition thereof. As a rule, the K2