We now try to show that the Epics2 present an historical unity3, a complete and harmonious4 picture of an age, in its political, social, legal, and religious aspects; in its customs, and in its military equipment. A long epic1 can only present an unity of historical ideas if it be the work of one age. Wandering minstrels, living through a succession of incompatible5 ages, civic6, commercial, democratic, could not preserve, without flaw or failure, the attitude, in the first place, of the poet of feudal7 princes towards an Over–Lord who rules them by undisputed right divine, but rules weakly, violently, unjustly, being subject to gusts8 of arrogance9, and avarice10, and repentance11. Late poets not living in feudal society, and unfamiliar12 alike with its customary law, its jealousy13 of the Over–Lord, its conservative respect for his consecrated14 function, would inevitably15 miss the proper tone, and fail in some of the many nuances of the feudal situation. This is all the more certain, if we accept Mr. Leaf’s theory that each poet-rhapsodist’s répertoire varied16 from the répertoires of the rest. There could be no unity of treatment in their handling of the character and position of the Over–Lord and of the customary law that regulates his relations with his peers. Again, no editor of 540 B.C. could construct an harmonious picture of the Over–Lord in relation to the princes out of the fragmentary répertoires of strolling rhapsodists, which now lay before him in written versions. If the editor could do this, he was a man of Shakespearian genius, and had minute knowledge of a dead society. This becomes evident when, in place of examining the Iliad through microscopes, looking out for discrepancies17, we study it in its large lines as a literary whole. The question being, Is the Iliad a literary whole or a mere18 literary mosaic19? we must ask “What, taking it provisionally as a literary whole, are the qualities of the poet as a painter of what we may call feudal society?”
Choosing the part of the Over–Lord Agamemnon, we must not forget that he is one of several analogous20 figures in the national poetry and romance of other feudal ages. Of that great analogous figure, Charlemagne, and of his relations with his peers in the earlier and later French mediaeval epics we shall later speak. Another example is Arthur, in some romances “the blameless king,” in others un roi fainéant.
The parallel Irish case is found in the Irish saga21 of Diarmaid and Grainne. We read Mr. O’Grady’s introduction on the position of Eionn Mac Cumhail, the legendary22 Over–Lord of Ireland, the Agamemnon of the Celts. “Fionn, like many men in power, is variable; he is at times magnanimous, at other times tyrannical and petty. Diarmaid, Oisin, Oscar, and Caoilte Mac Rohain are everywhere the [Greek: kaloi kachotoi] of the Fenians; of them we never hear anything bad.” 48
Human nature eternally repeats itself in similar conditions of society, French, Norse, Celtic, and Achaean. “We never hear anything bad” of Diomede, Odysseus, or Aias, and the evil in Achilles’s resentment23 up to a certain point is legal, and not beyond what the poet thinks natural and pardonable in his circumstances.
The poet’s view of Agamemnon is expressed in the speeches and conduct of the peers. In Book I. we see the bullying24 truculence25 of Agamemnon, wreaked26 first on the priest of Apollo, Chryses, then in threats against the prophet Chalcas, then in menaces against any prince on whom he chooses to avenge27 his loss of fair Chryseis, and, finally, in the Seizure28 of Briseis from Achilles.
This part of the First Book of the Iliad is confessedly original, and there is no varying, throughout the Epic, from the strong and delicate drawing of an historical situation, and of a complex character. Agamemnon is truculent29, and eager to assert his authority, but he is also possessed30 of a heavy sense of his responsibilities, which often unmans him. He has a legal right to a separate “prize of honour” (geras) after each capture of spoil. Considering the wrath31 of Apollo for the wrong done in refusing his priest’s offered ransom32 for his daughter, Agamemnon will give her back, “if that is better; rather would I see my folks whole than perishing.” 49
Here we note points of feudal law and of kingly character. The giving and taking of ransom exists as it did in the Middle Ages; ransom is refused, death is dealt, as the war becomes more fierce towards its close. Agamemnon has sense enough to waive33 his right to the girlish prize, for the sake of his people, but is not so generous as to demand no compensation. But there are no fresh spoils to apportion34, and the Over–Lord threatens to take the prize of one of his peers, even of Achilles.
Thereon Achilles does what was frequently done in the feudal age of western Europe, he “renounces his fealty36,” and will return to Phthia. He adds insult, “thou dog-face!” The whole situation, we shall show, recurs37 again and again in the epics of feudal France, the later epics of feudal discontent. Agamemnon replies that Achilles may do as he pleases. “I have others by my side that shall do me honour, and, above all, Zeus, Lord of Counsel” (I. 175). He rules, literally38, by divine right, and we shall see that, in the French feudal epics, as in Homer, this claim of divine right is granted, even in the case of an insolent39 and cowardly Over–Lord. Achilles half draws “his great sword,” one of the long, ponderous40 cut-and-thrust bronze swords of which we have actual examples from Mycenae and elsewhere. He is restrained by Athene, visible only to him. “With words, indeed,” she says, “revile him . . . . hereafter shall goodly gifts come to thee, yea, in threefold measure. . . . ”
Gifts of atonement for “surquedry,” like that of Agamemnon, are given and received in the French epics, for example, in the Chanson de Roland. The Iliad throughout exhibits much interest in such gifts, and in the customary law as to their acceptance, and other ritual or etiquette41 of reconciliation42. This fact, it will be shown, accounts for a passage which critics reject, and which is tedious to our taste, as it probably was tedious to the age of the supposed late poets themselves. (Book XIX.). But the taste of a feudal audience, as of the audience of the Saga men, delighted in “realistic” descriptions of their own customs and customary law, as in descriptions of costume and armour43. This is fortunate for students of customary law and costume, but wearies hearers and readers who desire the action to advance. Passages of this kind would never be inserted by late poets, who had neither the knowledge of, nor any interest in, the subjects.
To return to Achilles, he is now within his right; the moral goddess assures him of that, and he is allowed to give the: reins44 to his tongue, as he does in passages to which the mediaeval epics offer many parallels. In the mediaeval epics, as in Homer, there is no idea of recourse to a duel45 between the Over–Lord and his peer. Achilles accuses Agamemnon of drunkenness, greed, and poltroonery46. He does not return home, but swears by the sceptre that Agamemnon shall rue47 his outrecuidance when Hector slays48 the host. By the law of the age Achilles remains49 within his right. His violent words are not resented by the other peers. They tacitly admit, as Athene admits, that Achilles has the right, being so grievously injured, to “renounce35 his fealty,” till Agamemnon makes apology and gives gifts of atonement. Such, plainly, is the unwritten feudal law, which gives to the Over–Lord the lion’s share of booty, the initiative in war and council, and the right to command; but limits him by the privilege of the peers to renounce their fealty under insufferable provocation50. In no Book is Agamemnon so direfully insulted as in the First, which is admitted to be of the original “kernel51.” Elsewhere the sympathy of the poet occasionally enables him to feel the elements of pathos52 in the position of the over-tasked King of Men.
As concerns the apology and the gifts of atonement, the poet has feudal customary law and usage clearly before his eyes. He knows exactly what is due, and the limits of the rights of Over–Lord and prince, matters about which the late Ionian poets could only pick up information by a course of study in constitutional history — the last thing they were likely to attempt — unless we suppose that they all kept their eyes on the “kernel,” and that steadily53, through centuries, generations of strollers worked on the lines laid down in that brief poem.
Thus the poet of Book IX.— one of “the latest expansions,”— thoroughly54 understands the legal and constitutional situation, as between Agamemnon and Achilles. Or rather all the poets who collaborated55 in Book IX., which “had grown by a process of accretion,” 50 understood the legal situation.
Returning to the poet’s conception of Agamemnon, we find in the character of Agamemnon himself the key to the difficulties which critics discover in the Second Book. The difficulty is that when Zeus, won over to the cause of Achilles by Thetis, sends a false Dream to Agamemnon, the Dream tells the prince that he shall at once take Troy, and bids him summon the host to arms. But Agamemnon, far from doing that, summons the host to a peaceful assembly, with the well-known results of demoralisation.
Mr. Leaf explains the circumstances on his own theory of expansions compiled into a confused whole by a late editor. He thinks that probably there were two varying versions even of this earliest Book of the poem. In one (A), the story went on from the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles, to the holding of a general assembly “to consider the altered state of affairs.” This is the Assembly of Book H, but debate, in version A, was opened by Thersites, not by Agamemnon, and Thersites proposed instant flight! That was probably the earlier version.
In the other early version (B), after the quarrel between the chiefs, the story did not, as in A, go on straight to the Assembly, but Achilles appealed to his mother, the fair sea-goddess, as in our Iliad, and she obtained from Zeus, as in the actual Iliad, his promise to honour Achilles by giving victory, in his absence, to the Trojans. The poet of version B, in fact, created the beautiful figure of Thetis, so essential to the development of the tenderness that underlies56 the ferocity of Achilles. The other and earliest poet, who treated of the Wrath of the author of version A, neglected that opportunity with all that it involved, and omitted the purpose of Zeus, which is mentioned in the fifth line of the Epic. The editor of 540 B.C., seeing good in both versions, A and B, “combined his information,” and produced Books I. and II. of the Iliad as they stand. 51
Mr. Leaf suggests that “there is some ground for supposing that the oldest version of the Wrath of Achilles did not contain the promise of Zeus to Thetis; it was a tale played exclusively on the earthly stage.” 52 In that case the author of the oldest form (A) must have been a poet very inferior indeed to the later author of B who took up and altered his work. In his version, Book I. does not end with the quarrel of the princes, but Achilles receives, with all the courtesy of his character, the unwelcome heralds57 of Agamemnon, and sends Briseis with them to the Over–Lord. He then with tears appeals to his goddess-mother, Thetis of the Sea, who rose from the grey mere like a mist, leaving the sea deeps where she dwelt beside her father, the ancient one of the waters. Then sat she face to face with her son as he let the tears down fall, and caressed58 him, saying, “Child, wherefore weepest thou, for what sorrow of heart? Hide it not, tell it to me; that I may know it as well as thou.” Here the poet strikes the keynote of the character of Achilles, the deadly in war, the fierce in council, who weeps for his lost lady and his wounded honour, and cries for help to his mother, as little children cry.
Such is the Achilles of the Iliad throughout and consistently, but such he was not to the mind of Mr. Leaf’s probably elder poet, the author of version A. Thetis, in version B, promises to persuade Zeus to honour Achilles by making Agamemnon rue his absence, and, twelve days after the quarrel, wins the god’s consent.
In Book II. Zeus reflects on his promise, and sends a false Dream to beguile59 Agamemnon, promising60 that now he shall take Troy. Agamemnon, while asleep, is full of hope; but when he wakens he dresses in mufti, in a soft doublet, a cloak, and sandals; takes his sword (swords were then worn as part of civil costume), and the ancestral sceptre, which he wields61 in peaceful assemblies. Day dawns, and “he bids the heralds. . . . ” A break here occurs, according to the theory.
Here (Iliad, Book II., line 50) the kernel ceases, Mr. Leaf says, and the editor of 540 B.C. plays his pranks62 for a while.
The kernel (or one of the two kernels63), we are to take up again at Book II., 443–483, and thence “skip” to XI. 56, and now “we have a narrative64 masterly in conception and smooth in execution,” 53 says Mr. Leaf. This kernel is kernel B, probably the later kernel of the pair, that in which Achilles appeals to his lady mother, who wins from Zeus the promise to cause Achaean defeat, till Achilles is duly honoured. The whole Epic turns on this promise of Zeus, as announced in the fifth, sixth, and seventh lines of the very first Book. If kernel A is the first kernel, the poet left out the essence of the plot he had announced. However, let us first examine probable kernel B, reading, as advised, Book II. 1–50, 443–483; XI. 56 ff.
We left Agamemnon (though the Dream bade him summon the host to arms) dressed in civil costume. His ancestral sceptre in his hand, he is going to hold a deliberative assembly of the unarmed host. His attire65 proves that fact ([Greek: prepodaes de ae stolae to epi Boulaen exionti], says the scholiast). Then if we skip, as advised, to II. 443–483 he bids the heralds call the host not to peaceful council, for which his costume is appropriate, but to war! The host gathers, “and in their midst the lord Agamemnon,”— still in civil costume, with his sceptre (he has not changed his attire as far as we are told)— “in face and eyes like Zeus; in waist like Ares” (god of war); “in breast like Poseidon,”— yet, for all that we are told, entirely66 unarmed! The host, however, were dressed “in innumerable bronze,” “war was sweeter to them than to depart in their ships to their dear native land,”— so much did Athene encourage them.
But nobody had been speaking of flight, in the kernel B: that proposal was originally made by Thersites, in kernel A, and was attributed to Agamemnon in the part of Book II. where the editor blends A and B. This part, at present, Mr. Leaf throws aside as a very late piece of compilation67. Turning next, as directed, to XI. 56, we find the Trojans deploying68 in arms, and the hosts encounter with fury — Agamemnon still, for all that appears, in the raiment of peace, and with the sceptre of constitutional monarchy69. “In he rushed, first of all, and slew70 Bienor,” and many other gentlemen of Troy, not with his sceptre!
Clearly all this is the reverse of “a narrative masterly in conception and smooth in execution:” it is an impossible narrative.
Mr. Leaf has attempted to disengage one of two forms of the old original poem from the parasitic71 later growths; he has promised to show us a smooth and masterly narrative, and the result is a narrative on which no Achasan poet could have ventured. In II. 50 the heralds are bidden [Greek: kurussein], that is to summon the host — to what? To a peaceful assembly, as Agamemnon’s costume proves, says the next line (II. 51), but that is excised72 by Mr. Leaf, and we go on to II. 443, and the reunited passage now reads, “Agamemnon bade the loud heralds” (II. 50) “call the Achaeans to battle” (II. 443), and they came, in harness, but their leader — when did he exchange chiton, cloak, and sceptre for helmet, shield, and spear? A host appears in arms; a king who set out with sceptre and doublet is found with a spear, in bronze armour: and not another word is said about the Dream of Agamemnon.
It is perfectly74 obvious and certain that the two pieces of the broken kernel B do not fit together at all. Nor is this strange, if the kernel was really broken and endured the insertion of matter enough to fill nine Books (IL-XL). If kernel B really contained Book II., line 50, as Mr. Leaf avers75, if Agamemnon, as in that line (50) “bade the clear-voiced heralds do. . . . ” something — what he bade them do was, necessarily, as his peaceful costume proves, to summon the peaceful assembly which he was to moderate with his sceptre. At such an assembly, or at a preliminary council of Chiefs, he would assuredly speak of his Dream, as he does in the part excised. Mr. Leaf, if he will not have a peaceful assembly as part of kernel B, must begin his excision76 at the middle of line 42, in II., where Agamemnon wakens; and must make him dress not in mufti but in armour, and call the host of the Achaeans to arm, as the Dream bade him do, and as he does in II. 443. Perhaps we should then excise73 II. 45 2, 45 3, with the reference to the plan of retreat, for that is part of kernel A where there was no promise of Zeus, and no Dream sent to Agamemnon. Then from II. 483, the description of the glorious armed aspect of Agamemnon, Mr. Leaf may pass to XI. 56, the account of the Trojans under Hector, of the battle, of the prowess of Agamemnon, inspired by the Dream which he, contrary to Homeric and French epic custom, has very wisely mentioned to nobody — that is, in the part not excised.
This appears to be the only method by which Mr. Leaf can restore the continuity of his kernel B.
Though Mr. Leaf has failed to fit Book XI. to any point in Book II., of course it does not follow that Book XI. cannot be a continuation of the original Wrath of Achilles (version B). If so, we understand why Agamemnon plucks up heart, in Book XI., and is the chief cause of a temporary Trojan reverse. He relies on the Dream sent from Zeus in the opening lines of Book II., the Dream which was not in kernel A; the Dream which he communicated to nobody; the Dream conveying the promise that he should at once take Troy. This is perhaps a tenable theory, though Agamemnon had much reason to doubt whether the host would obey his command to arm, but an alternative theory of why and wherefore Agamemnon does great feats77 of valour, in Book XI., will later be propounded78. Note that the events of Books XL.-XVIII., by Mr. Leaf’s theory, all occur on the very day after Thetis (according to kernel B)’ [79] obtains from Zeus his promise to honour Achilles by the discomfiture79 of the Achaeans; they have suffered nothing till that moment, as far as we learn, from the absence of Achilles and his 2500 men: allowing for casualties, say 2000.
So far we have traced — from Books I. and II. to Book XI.— the fortunes of kernel B, of the supposed later of two versions of the opening of the Iliad. But there may have been a version (A) probably earlier, we have been told, in which Achilles did not appeal to his mother, nor she to Zeus, and Zeus did not promise victory to the Trojans, and sent no false Dream of success to Agamemnon. What were the fortunes of that oldest of all old kernels? In this version (A) Agamemnon, having had no Dream, summoned a peaceful assembly to discuss the awkwardness caused by the mutiny of Achilles. The host met (Iliad, II. 87–99). Here we pass from line 99 to 212–242: Thersites it is who opens the debate, (in version A) insults Agamemnon, and advises flight. The army rushed off to launch the ships, as in II. 142–210, and were brought back by Odysseus, who made a stirring speech, and was well backed by Agamemnon, urging to battle.
Version A appears to us to have been a version that no heroic audience would endure. A low person like Thersites opens a debate in an assembly called by the Over–Lord; this could not possibly pass unchallenged among listeners living in the feudal age. When a prince called an assembly, he himself opened the debate, as Achilles does in Book I. 54–67. That a lewd80 fellow, the buffoon81 and grumbler82 of the host, of “the people,” nameless and silent throughout the Epic, should rush in and open debate in an assembly convoked83 by the Over–Lord, would have been regarded by feudal hearers, or by any hearers with feudal traditions, as an intolerable poetical85 license86. Thersites would have been at once pulled down and beaten; the host would not have rushed to the ships on his motion. Any feudal audience would know better than to endure such an impossibility; they would have asked, “How could Thersites speak — without the sceptre?”
As the poem stands, and ought to stand, nobody less than the Over–Lord, acting87 within his right, ([Greek: ae themis esti] II. 73), could suggest the flight of the host, and be obeyed.
It is the absolute demoralisation of the host, in consequence of the strange test of their Lord, Agamemnon, making a feigned88 proposal to fly, and it is their confused, bewildered return to the assembly under the persuasions89 of Odysseus, urged by Athene, that alone, in the poem, give Thersites his unique opportunity to harangue90. When the Over–Lord had called an assembly the first word, of course, was for to speak, as he does in the poem as it stands. That Thersifes should rise in the arrogance bred by the recent disorderly and demoralised proceedings91 is one thing; that he should open the debate when excitement was eager to hear Agamemnon, and before demoralisation set in, is quite another. We never hear again of Thersites, or of any one of the commonalty, daring to open his mouth in an assembly. Thersites sees his one chance, the chance of a life time, and takes it; because Agamemnon, by means of the test — a proposal to flee homewards — which succeeded, it is said, in the case of Cortès,— has reduced the host, already discontented, to a mob.
Before Agamemnon thus displayed his ineptitude92, as he often does later, Thersites had no chance. All this appears sufficiently93 obvious, if we put ourselves at the point of view of the original listeners. Thersites merely continues, in full assembly, the mutinous94 babble95 which he has been pouring out to his neighbours during the confused rush to launch the ships and during the return produced by the influence of Odysseus. The poet says so himself (Iliad, II. 212). “The rest sat down . . . only Thersites still chattered96 on.” No original poet could manage the situation in any other way.
We have now examined Mr. Leaf’s two supposed earliest versions of the beginning of the Iliad. His presumed earlier version (A), with no Thetis, no promise of Zeus, and no Dream, and with Thersites opening debate, is jejune97, unpoetical, and omits the gentler and most winning aspect of the character of Achilles, while it could not possibly have been accepted by a feudal audience for the reasons already given. His presumed later version (B), with Thetis, Zeus, and the false Dream, cannot be, or certainly has not been, brought by Mr. Leaf into congruous connection with Book XI., and it results in the fighting of the unarmed Agamemnon, which no poet could have been so careless as to invent. Agamemnon could not go into battle without helmet, shield, and spears (the other armour we need not dwell upon here), and Thersites could not have opened a debate when the Over–Lord had called the Assembly, nor could he have moved the chiefs to prepare for flight, unless, as in the actual Iliad, they had already been demoralised by the result of the feigned proposal of flight by Agamemnon, and its effect upon the host. Probably every reader who understands heroic society, temper, and manners will, so far, agree with us.
Our own opinion is that the difficulties in the poem are caused partly by the poet’s conception of the violent, wavering, excitable, and unstable98 character of Agamemnon; partly by some accident, now indiscoverable, save by conjecture99, which has happened to the text.
The story in the actual Iliad is that Zeus, planning disaster for the Achaeans, in accordance with his promise to Thetis, sends a false Dream, to tell Agamemnon that he will take Troy instantly. He is bidden by the Dream to summon the host to arms. Agamemnon, still asleep, “has in his mind things not to be fulfilled: Him seemeth that he shall take Priam’s town that very day” (II. 36, 37). “Then he awoke” (II. 41), and, obviously, was no longer so sanguine100, once awake!
Being a man crushed by his responsibility, and, as commander-inchief, extremely timid, though personally brave, he disobeys the Dream, dresses in civil costume, and summons the host to a peaceful assembly, not to war, as the Dream bade him do. Probably he thought that the host was disaffected101, and wanted to argue with them, in place of commanding.
Here it is that the difficulty comes in, and our perplexity is increased by our ignorance of the regular procedure in Homeric times. Was the host not in arms and fighting every day, when there was no truce103? There seems to have been no armistice104 after the mutiny of Achilles, for we are told that, in the period between his mutiny and the day of the Dream of Agamemnon, Achilles “was neither going to the Assembly, nor into battle, but wasted his heart, abiding105 there, longing106 for war and the slogan” (I. 489, 492). Thus it seems that war went on, and that assemblies were being held, in the absence of Achilles. It appears, however, that the fighting was mere skirmishing and raiding, no general onslaught was attempted; and from Book II. 73, 83 it seems to have been a matter of doubt, with Agamemnon and Nestor, whether the army would venture a pitched battle.
It also appears, from the passage cited (I. 489, 492) that assemblies were being regularly held; we are told that Achilles did not attend them. Yet, when we come to the assembly (II. 86–100) it seems to have been a special and exciting affair, to judge by the brilliant picture of the crowds, the confusion, and the cries. Nothing of the sort is indicated in the meeting of the assembly in I. 54–5 8. Why is there so much excitement at the assembly of Book II.? Partly because it was summoned at dawn, whereas the usual thing was for the host to meet in arms before fighting on the plain or going on raids; assemblies were held when the day’s work was over. The host, therefore, when summoned to an assembly at dawn, expects to hear of something out of the common — as the mutiny of Achilles suggests — and is excited.
We must ask, then, why does Agamemnon, after the Dream has told him merely to summon the host to arm — a thing of daily routine — call a deliberative morning assembly, a thing clearly not of routine? If Agamemnon is really full of confidence, inspired by the Dream, why does he determine, not to do what is customary, call the men to arms, but as Jeanne d’Arc said to the Dauphin, to “hold such long and weary councils”? Mr. Jevons speaks of Agamemnon’s “confidence in the delusive107 dream” as at variance108 with his proceedings, and would excise II. 35–41, “the only lines which represent Agamemnon as confidently believing in the Dream.” 54 But the poet never once says that Agamemnon, awake, did believe confidently in the Dream! Agamemnon dwelt with hope while asleep; when he wakened — he went and called a peaceful morning assembly, though the Dream bade him call to arms. He did not dare to risk his authority. This was exactly in keeping with his character. The poet should have said, “When he woke, the Dream appeared to him rather poor security for success” (saying so in poetic84 language, of course), and then there would be no difficulty in the summoning of an assembly at dawn. But either the poet expected us to understand the difference between the hopes of Agamemnon sleeping, and the doubts of Agamemnon waking to chill realities — an experience common to all of us who dream — or some explanatory lines have been dropped out — one or two would have cleared up the matter.
If I am right, the poet has not been understood. People have not observed that Agamemnon hopes while asleep, and doubts, and acts on his doubt, when awake. Thus Mr. Leaf writes: “Elated by the dream, as we are led to suppose, Agamemnon summons the army — to lead them into battle? Nothing of the sort; he calls them to assembly.” 55 But we ought not to have been led to suppose that the waking Agamemnon was so elated as the sleeping Agamemnon. He was “disillusioned” on waking; his conduct proves it; he did not know what to think about the Dream; he did not know how the host would take the Dream; he doubted whether they would fight at his command, so he called an assembly.
Mr. Jevons very justly cites a parallel case. Grote has remarked that in Book VII. of Herodotus, “The dream sent by the Gods to frighten Xerxes when about to recede109 from his project,” has “a marked parallel in the Iliad.” Thus Xerxes, after the defection of Artabanus, was despondent110, like Agamemnon after the mutiny of Achilles, and was about to recede from his project. To both a delusive dream is sent urging them to proceed. Xerxes calls an assembly, however, and says that he will not proceed. Why? Because, says Herodotus, “when day came, he thought nothing of his dream.” Agamemnon, once awake, thought doubtfully of his dream; he called a Privy111 Council, told the princes about his dream — of which Nestor had a very dubious112 opinion — and said that he would try the temper of the army by proposing instant flight: the chiefs should restrain the men if they were eager to run away.
Now the epic prose narrative of Herodotus is here clearly based on Iliad, II., which Herodotus must have understood as I do. But in Homer there is no line to say — and one line or two would have been enough — that Agamemnon, when awake, doubted, like Xerxes, though Agamemnon, when asleep, had been confident. The necessary line, for all that we know, still existed in the text used by Herodotus. Homer may lose a line as well as Dieuchidas of Megara, or rather Diogenes Laertius. Juvenal lost a whole passage, re-discovered by Mr. Winstedt in a Bodleian manuscript. If Homer expected modern critics to note the delicate distinction between Agamemnon asleep and Agamemnon awake, or to understand Agamemnon’s character, he expected too much. 56 The poet then treats the situation on these lines: Agamemnon, awake and free from illusion, does not obey the dream, does not call the army to war; he takes a middle course.
In the whole passage the poet’s main motive113, as Mr. Monro remarks with obvious truth, is “to let his audience become acquainted with the temper and spirit of the army as it was affected102 by the long siege . . . and by the events of the First Book.” 57 The poet could not obtain his object if Agamemnon merely gave the summons to battle; and he thinks Agamemnon precisely114 the kind of waverer who will call, first the Privy Council of the Chiefs, and then an assembly. Herein the homesick host will display its humours, as it does with a vengeance115. Agamemnon next tells his Dream to the chiefs (if he had a dream of this kind he would most certainly tell it), and adds (as has been already stated) that he will first test the spirit of the army by a feigned proposal of return to Greece, while the chiefs are to restrain them if they rush to launch the ships. Nestor hints that there is not much good in attending to dreams; however, this is the dream of the Over–Lord, who is the favoured of Zeus.
Agamemnon next, addressing the assembly, says that posterity116 will think it a shameful117 thing that the Achaeans raised the siege of a town with a population much smaller than their own army; but allies from many cities help the Trojans, and are too strong for him, whether posterity understands that or not. “Let us flee with our ships!”
On this the host break up, in a splendid passage of poetry, and rush to launch the ships, the passion of nostalgie carrying away even the chiefs, it appears — a thing most natural in the circumstances. But Athene finds Odysseus in grief: “neither laid he any hand upon his ship,” as the others did, and she encouraged him to stop the flight. This he does, taking the sceptre of Agamemnon from his unnerved hand.
He goes about reminding the princes “have we not heard Agamemnon’s real intention in council?” (II. 188–197), and rating the common sort. The assembly meets again in great confusion; Thersites seizes the chance to be insolent, and is beaten by Odysseus. The host then arms for battle.
The poet has thus shown Agamemnon in the colours which he wears consistently all through the Iliad. He has, as usual, contrasted with him Odysseus, the type of a wise and resolute118 man. This contrast the poet maintains without fail throughout. He has shown us the temper of the weary, home-sick army, and he has persuaded us that he knows how subtle, dangerous, and contagious119 a thing is military panic. Thus, at least, I venture to read the passage, which, thus read, is perfectly intelligible120. Agamemnon is no personal coward, but the burden of the safety of the host overcomes him later, and he keeps suggesting flight in the ships, as we shall see. Suppose, then, we read on from II. 40 thus: “The Dream left him thinking of things not to be, even that on this day he shall take the town of Priam. . . . But he awoke from sleep with the divine voice ringing in his ears. (Then it seemed him that some dreams are true and some false, for all do not come through the Gate of Horn.) So he arose and sat up and did on his soft tunic121, and his great cloak, and grasped his ancestral sceptre . . . and bade the clear-voiced heralds summon the Achaeans of the long locks to the deliberative assembly.” He then, as in II. 53–75 told his Dream to the preliminary council, and proposed that he should try the temper of the host by proposing flight — which, if it began, the chiefs were to restrain — before giving orders to arm. The test of the temper of the host acted as it might be expected to act; all rushed to launch the ships, and the princes were swept away in the tide of flight, Agamemnon himself merely looking on helpless. The panic was contagious; only Odysseus escaped its influence, and redeemed122 the honour of the Achaeans, as he did again on a later day.
The passage certainly has its difficulties. But Erhardt expresses the proper state of the case, after giving his analysis. “The hearer’s imagination is so captured, first by the dream, then by the brawling123 assembly, by the rush to the ships, by the intervention124 of Odysseus, by the punishment of Thersites — all these living pictures follow each other so fleetly before the eyes that we have scarcely time to make objections.” 58. The poet aimed at no more and no less effect than he has produced, and no more should be required by any one, except by that anachronism —“the analytical125 reader.” He has “time to make objections”: the poet’s audience had none; and he must be criticised from their point of view. Homer did not sing for analytical readers, for the modern professor; he could not possibly conceive that Time would bring such a being into existence.
To return to the character of Agamemnon. In moments of encouragement Agamemnon is a valiant126 fighter, few better spearmen, yet “he attains127 not to the first Three,” Achilles, Aias, Diomede. But Agamemnon is unstable as water; again and again, as in Book II., the lives and honour of the Achaeans are saved in the Over–Lord’s despite by one or other of the peers. The whole Iliad, with consistent uniformity, pursues the scheme of character and conduct laid down in the two first Books. It is guided at once by feudal allegiance and feudal jealousy, like the Chansons de Geste and the early sagas128 or romances of Ireland. A measure of respect for Agamemnon, even of sympathy, is preserved; he is not degraded as the kings and princes are often degraded on the Attic129 stage, and even in the Cyclic poems. Would wandering Ionian reciters at fairs have maintained this uniformity? Would the tyrant130 Pisistratus have made his literary man take this view?
收听单词发音 |
1
epic
|
|
| n.史诗，叙事诗；adj.史诗般的，壮丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
epics
|
|
| n.叙事诗( epic的名词复数 )；壮举；惊人之举；史诗般的电影（或书籍） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
harmonious
|
|
| adj.和睦的，调和的，和谐的，协调的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
incompatible
|
|
| adj.不相容的，不协调的，不相配的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
feudal
|
|
| adj.封建的，封地的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
gusts
|
|
| 一阵强风( gust的名词复数 )； （怒、笑等的）爆发； （感情的）迸发； 发作 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
avarice
|
|
| n.贪婪；贪心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
repentance
|
|
| n.懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
unfamiliar
|
|
| adj.陌生的，不熟悉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
jealousy
|
|
| n.妒忌，嫉妒，猜忌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
consecrated
|
|
| adj.神圣的，被视为神圣的v.把…奉为神圣，给…祝圣( consecrate的过去式和过去分词 )；奉献 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
varied
|
|
| adj.多样的，多变化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
mosaic
|
|
| n./adj.镶嵌细工的，镶嵌工艺品的，嵌花式的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
analogous
|
|
| adj.相似的；类似的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
saga
|
|
| n.(尤指中世纪北欧海盗的)故事，英雄传奇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
legendary
|
|
| adj.传奇（中）的，闻名遐迩的；n.传奇（文学） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
bullying
|
|
| v.恐吓，威逼( bully的现在分词 )；豪；跋扈 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
truculence
|
|
| n.凶猛，粗暴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
wreaked
|
|
| 诉诸（武力），施行（暴力），发（脾气）( wreak的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
avenge
|
|
| v.为...复仇，为...报仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
seizure
|
|
| n.没收；占有；抵押 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
truculent
|
|
| adj.野蛮的，粗野的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
wrath
|
|
| n.愤怒，愤慨，暴怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
ransom
|
|
| n.赎金，赎身；v.赎回，解救 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
waive
|
|
| vt.放弃，不坚持(规定、要求、权力等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
apportion
|
|
| vt.（按比例或计划）分配 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
renounce
|
|
| v.放弃；拒绝承认，宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
fealty
|
|
| n.忠贞，忠节 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
recurs
|
|
| 再发生，复发( recur的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
insolent
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，无理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
ponderous
|
|
| adj.沉重的，笨重的，(文章)冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
etiquette
|
|
| n.礼仪，礼节；规矩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
reconciliation
|
|
| n.和解，和谐，一致 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
armour
|
|
| （=armor）n.盔甲；装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
reins
|
|
| 感情，激情； 缰( rein的名词复数 )； 控制手段； 掌管； （成人带着幼儿走路以防其走失时用的）保护带 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
duel
|
|
| n./v.决斗；(双方的)斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
poltroonery
|
|
| n.怯懦，胆小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
47
rue
|
|
| n.懊悔，芸香，后悔；v.后悔，悲伤，懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
slays
|
|
| 杀死，宰杀，杀戮( slay的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
kernel
|
|
| n.(果实的)核，仁；(问题)的中心，核心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
pathos
|
|
| n.哀婉，悲怆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
steadily
|
|
| adv.稳定地；不变地；持续地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
collaborated
|
|
| 合作( collaborate的过去式和过去分词 )； 勾结叛国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
underlies
|
|
| v.位于或存在于（某物）之下( underlie的第三人称单数 )；构成…的基础（或起因），引起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
heralds
|
|
| n.使者( herald的名词复数 )；预报者；预兆；传令官v.预示( herald的第三人称单数 )；宣布（好或重要） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
caressed
|
|
| 爱抚或抚摸…( caress的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
beguile
|
|
| vt.欺骗，消遣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
wields
|
|
| 手持着使用（武器、工具等）( wield的第三人称单数 )； 具有； 运用（权力）； 施加（影响） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
pranks
|
|
| n.玩笑，恶作剧( prank的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
kernels
|
|
| 谷粒( kernel的名词复数 )； 仁； 核； 要点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
attire
|
|
| v.穿衣，装扮[同]array；n.衣着；盛装 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
compilation
|
|
| n.编译，编辑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
deploying
|
|
| （尤指军事行动）使展开( deploy的现在分词 )； 施展； 部署； 有效地利用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
slew
|
|
| v.（使）旋转；n.大量，许多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
parasitic
|
|
| adj.寄生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
excised
|
|
| v.切除，删去( excise的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
excise
|
|
| n.(国产)货物税；vt.切除，删去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
avers
|
|
| v.断言( aver的第三人称单数 )；证实；证明…属实；作为事实提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
excision
|
|
| n.删掉；除去 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
feats
|
|
| 功绩，伟业，技艺( feat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
discomfiture
|
|
| n.崩溃；大败；挫败；困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
lewd
|
|
| adj.淫荡的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
buffoon
|
|
| n.演出时的丑角 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
grumbler
|
|
| 爱抱怨的人，发牢骚的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
convoked
|
|
| v.召集，召开（会议）( convoke的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
poetic
|
|
| adj.富有诗意的，有诗人气质的，善于抒情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
poetical
|
|
| adj.似诗人的；诗一般的；韵文的；富有诗意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
license
|
|
| n.执照，许可证，特许；v.许可，特许 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
feigned
|
|
| a.假装的，不真诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
persuasions
|
|
| n.劝说，说服（力）( persuasion的名词复数 )；信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
harangue
|
|
| n.慷慨冗长的训话，言辞激烈的讲话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
ineptitude
|
|
| n.不适当；愚笨，愚昧的言行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
mutinous
|
|
| adj.叛变的，反抗的；adv.反抗地，叛变地；n.反抗，叛变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
babble
|
|
| v.含糊不清地说，胡言乱语地说，儿语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
chattered
|
|
| （人）喋喋不休( chatter的过去式 )； 唠叨； （牙齿）打战； （机器）震颤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
jejune
|
|
| adj.枯燥无味的，贫瘠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
unstable
|
|
| adj.不稳定的，易变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
sanguine
|
|
| adj.充满希望的，乐观的，血红色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
disaffected
|
|
| adj.（政治上）不满的，叛离的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
truce
|
|
| n.休战，(争执，烦恼等的)缓和；v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
armistice
|
|
| n.休战，停战协定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
abiding
|
|
| adj.永久的，持久的，不变的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
delusive
|
|
| adj.欺骗的，妄想的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
variance
|
|
| n.矛盾，不同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
recede
|
|
| vi.退(去)，渐渐远去；向后倾斜，缩进 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
despondent
|
|
| adj.失望的，沮丧的，泄气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
privy
|
|
| adj.私用的；隐密的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
dubious
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，无把握的；有问题的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
shameful
|
|
| adj.可耻的，不道德的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
contagious
|
|
| adj.传染性的，有感染力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
tunic
|
|
| n.束腰外衣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
redeemed
|
|
| adj. 可赎回的，可救赎的 动词redeem的过去式和过去分词形式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
brawling
|
|
| n.争吵，喧嚷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
analytical
|
|
| adj.分析的；用分析法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
valiant
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，英勇的；n.勇士，勇敢的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
attains
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的第三人称单数 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
sagas
|
|
| n.萨迦（尤指古代挪威或冰岛讲述冒险经历和英雄业绩的长篇故事）( saga的名词复数 )；（讲述许多年间发生的事情的）长篇故事；一连串的事件（或经历）；一连串经历的讲述（或记述） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
attic
|
|
| n.顶楼，屋顶室 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
tyrant
|
|
| n.暴君，专制的君主，残暴的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |