Homer and Classical Philology | Page 7

only path which leads back beyond the time of Pisistratus and helps us to elucidate
the meaning of the name Homer, takes its way on the one hand through the reports which
have reached us concerning Homer's birthplace: from which we see that, although his
name is always associated with heroic epic poems, he is on the other hand no more
referred to as the composer of the Iliad and the Odyssey than as the author of the Thebais
or any other cyclical epic. On the other hand, again, an old tradition tells of the contest
between Homer and Hesiod, which proves that when these two names were mentioned
people instinctively thought of two epic tendencies, the heroic and the didactic; and that
the signification of the name "Homer" was included in the material category and not in
the formal. This imaginary contest with Hesiod did not even yet show the faintest
presentiment of individuality. From the time of Pisistratus onwards, however, with the
surprisingly rapid development of the Greek feeling for beauty, the differences in the
æsthetic value of those epics continued to be felt more and more: the Iliad and the
Odyssey arose from the depths of the flood and have remained on the surface ever since.
With this process of æsthetic separation, the conception of Homer gradually became
narrower: the old material meaning of the name "Homer" as the father of the heroic epic
poem, was changed into the æsthetic meaning of Homer, the father of poetry in general,
and likewise its original prototype. This transformation was contemporary with the
rationalistic criticism which made Homer the magician out to be a possible poet, which
vindicated the material and formal traditions of those numerous epics as against the unity
of the poet, and gradually removed that heavy load of cyclical epics from Homer's
shoulders.
So Homer, the poet of the Iliad and the Odyssey, is an æsthetic judgment. It is, however,

by no means affirmed against the poet of these epics that he was merely the imaginary
being of an æsthetic impossibility, which can be the opinion of only very few philologists
indeed. The majority contend that a single individual was responsible for the general
design of a poem such as the Iliad, and further that this individual was Homer. The first
part of this contention may be admitted; but, in accordance with what I have said, the
latter part must be denied. And I very much doubt whether the majority of those who
adopt the first part of the contention have taken the following considerations into account.
The design of an epic such as the Iliad is not an entire whole, not an organism; but a
number of pieces strung together, a collection of reflections arranged in accordance with
æsthetic rules. It is certainly the standard of an artist's greatness to note what he can take
in with a single glance and set out in rhythmical form. The infinite profusion of images
and incidents in the Homeric epic must force us to admit that such a wide range of vision
is next to impossible. Where, however, a poet is unable to observe artistically with a
single glance, he usually piles conception on conception, and endeavours to adjust his
characters according to a comprehensive scheme.
He will succeed in this all the better the more he is familiar with the fundamental
principles of æsthetics: he will even make some believe that he made himself master of
the entire subject by a single powerful glance.
The Iliad is not a garland, but a bunch of flowers. As many pictures as possible are
crowded on one canvas; but the man who placed them there was indifferent as to whether
the grouping of the collected pictures was invariably suitable and rhythmically beautiful.
He well knew that no one would ever consider the collection as a whole; but would
merely look at the individual parts. But that stringing together of some pieces as the
manifestations of a grasp of art which was not yet highly developed, still less thoroughly
comprehended and generally esteemed, cannot have been the real Homeric deed, the real
Homeric epoch-making event. On the contrary, this design is a later product, far later
than Homer's celebrity. Those, therefore, who look for the "original and perfect design"
are looking for a mere phantom; for the dangerous path of oral tradition had reached its
end just as the systematic arrangement appeared on the scene; the disfigurements which
were caused on the way could not have affected the design, for this did not form part of
the material handed down from generation to generation.
The relative imperfection of the design must not, however, prevent us from seeing in the
designer a different personality from the real poet. It is not only probable that