New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-12-28

1Or 1De DSycnOIogISt iihH i'i WV
Homer 1t is very far from what it processes TO
be- Such landmarks as it presents point 10 the
defects in it's authors critical faculty, and MOB
10 the real progress Of Il0neric study. What the
little book stands for is an entirely obsolete ana
abandoned line of argument. and what there IS
remarkable in It's pages is the singular ~rVcfSl'S
with which Mr. Gladstone ignores every position
taken by modern criticism lie himself Is almost
precisely where the critical world was nall cch-
tury ago. and no advances made during that perlo"
have had the slightest effect upon hlln. Ills
mental attitude resembles that OF man VINO HAS
never seen a railroad, and who grows gray Nauh,-
ing the superiority of the od-iashoned staSe-codo"
as a means Of transportation HIS poiht oil we"
may I've clearly enough estimated from "hdU hc
saws on the unity of authorship question for
fifty years the highest and deepest criticism mas
been accommodating evidence in disproof Of the old
hypothesis that Homer wrote the HAD ana the
odyssey substantially they have come do"h
10 u.s. The view generally held IS tha' Vl'Sc
works represent not only several hands, put scNcih
periods, and the arguments In support Vi '""'
view are 10 the ordinary mind wc-nigh incon-
icstable But Mr.. Gladstone. with KIND OF
literary levity, which is exceedingly curious re-
oordod mcrelv rs an intellectual manifestations
nuts all the results of pathological and archaco-
LOGICAL research behind him without so much as
recognizing its existence. and gravely Iei'era'cS
the exploded, discredted impressions of his youth
Nay he even goes beyond, or. as one might Sly :
bebind those impressions for he holds now, nor
only that Homer wrote the Had and ODYSSEY
substantially as we have them, but that he wrote
,hem without the slightest suggestion or ald from
already eXsing traditions, mythologes OF NV
ogonies: that in fact, he created the whole Worhs
zen bloc"
Mr.. Gladstone will have rome of the principe
of evolution in literature, in the orien OF specic''
or in physics The scientific method OF Wri'l"@
history and of asccrtainnc the facts concerning
archaic productions is simply rcpUlla'"u ny MN
II is nothing to his peculiar mentality tha' PM
lology has discovered clear proof oil Wcluih3 III "'
Homcrc books: that the use or disuSe oil CERTAIN
grammatical forms demonstrates inc INCLUSION VI
widely separated periods in the compositions ,i"'
the mythology of the Had ana that OF me guy
GOV are 50 distinct and radically different rs to
reveal anything but identity of origin; thau 'e'
same character is treated in the two books so
differently as 10 imply divided authorship al
those things Mr.. Gladstone shuiilcs aide as OF no
sjoYiticancc and dwells in support of his own
positions. upon considerations which resi- upon
nurelv tancifnl analogies, or NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS., or
Recommendations due. no doubt 10 dPIcc'l'
memory Mr. Gladstone reminds us of one oil the
nbilosopbic reflections of the ament'd Art'mu'
Ward That worthy remarked that that winch
surprised him. in his contact Win ms i'I""-n'"'
was not that people knew so many things pu' ''''
such large percentage Ga them kne" ;" many
things that were no 50. No :, MI "l'"s'
knows many things about Home; mat nc tnihhS
he knows more than he does Is shown ny MS di'-
tun that full knowledge of Tie text OF Homer
i all that is necessary 10 complete s"in'l"h u
all Tho IIomcrc problems. But what Is S'rPH>-
inc is that lie Should know 50 many thin@s a"o,.'
Homer which are not so, TO use Artehis "aIus
nhrasc: things which have in fact TO he dehDer-
ately read into Homer before they can be lound'
Mr.. Gladstone has perhaps thoroughly ac-
customcd himself TO explain away pohtlcal az
fcnlties. that he naturally employs the same met'-
ods in dealing with literary dlficrlteS Ire c.'-
cunsianccs however, are really not az ali ahdh-
aous In treating of Homer. the text always re-
mains and the results OF modern cll'lclsh dIS' ~
main: and whose undertakes to ercc' loucIl'
landmarks must take into account these TWO III
dissoluble factors. For the most ingenious "''"
srhtile dialectic must he wasted upon these sub
stantivc fICts. II Mr.. Gladstone loT eN'"iPi''
savs that absolute uniformity in the treatment
of character in the Had and odyssey deniohS'rac'
ideptjtv of authorship, and the Had and Odyssey
NOT AZ all the Odysseus Of the second, TO wh''
nseful nuruo.e is Mr. Gladstonc's contention? II
AGAIN uniformity Of NY thoO2y he alleged ana IL
;c tbcrcdnou shown tia; no such uniformity IN
fact e>ists: that really the thcOeony OF the Ihd'
i ooc thing ana the theogony of the Odyssey
,,r,c ,ro,hcy- and what is significant, more
oIvarccl and modern thing what becomes oil MI
Cils,onr's cur irntlC..1 in truth, II must TIC
said that the distinguished author OF iiomcrlc
landmarks" exhibits all through the BOOK an III
ability TO perceive the meaning ana sehi''c'"''
of evidence which. if rightly considered, ni"A cN
Main some perplcNn2 features in his pnohc career
TO the average man it is dtcust to comprehend
state Of mind in which the researches ana cohci"'
sions Of nearly two generations OF scholars appear
totally void of weight or authority. lhele arc
;,da.d like instances TO be found III the history
of theological controversy, hut sclenthc me'hodS
are notoriously excluded from that domain, ana
here, at least, by the general consent they shou"
De in control
While rejecting thc modern llomrrc criticism
however. Mr. Gladstone inJectE surprising mum
Der of modern ideas into he author. lie con
,iders Homer to nave been WORKING 'hiouSho"
,,r,lor tho conviction that he had special mission
that he was n nation-malier: that 1t was ms ousl
noes to elevate the religion of his country
that he was called 70 impress upon the "rceK
their homogenety that hc was 10 tcach hlShe
rthic: and, lastly. that he was 10 cS'abilsh 'i'
foundations at least for better political system
In accordance Will these views, Mr. 'hads'oi
sketches Homer unknown t. scientific criticism
an emphaticaly modern, civilized, prcsclch' JIG
ner. who looks before and after, VINO cs'lmat
the religion of his period very much as Mi. ~i'o
stone himself may he supposed to estimate IT, aho
speaking generally. who determines his coufS
exactly as though he knew what was going
happcn in the succeeding centuries. Nor Is In
the only pecuIiariiy to b. noted. Homer, occor'
inc IN this estimate OF him, must, indeed, hav
been. as Mr. Gladstone says, isolated, as we
as consumrnatc"; for If IL commended that he ore
nothing either from contemporary belief or iro
pre-existing legend and tradition. If tins wei
so. his isolation was without precedent or para
IL ,,n,. ind Elll tln