The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-06-11

years before our era. whichever date b,
| taken. however for this inscription II In hard
to reconcile at FIRST sight its being written from
left to right with the method OF fnsoribine
Solon's laws 1904 B. CT which was alternately
from right to left and from left TO right But
Mr.. Lang contends that there must have been
time in the process Of transition when the
two m ethods OF writing must have concurrent
" existed and no one will dispute his tur-
Their avsrment that the one method 10 rs avail
able for literary compositions as the other.
There can be no more artistic writing than 10
to be found In Arabic. which. OF course. 10 al
ways written from right to left AZ for Wolfs
assum ption that in Greece letters would long
be employed only for brief inscriptions on
stone or metal. It is pointed out that
the first Phnnician letters which Greeks
would see at homo must have been In porta-
bic documents belonging to Phpnician mer-
chants. As to the alleged deficiency OF writ
Ing material we are reminded tnhs
Egyptoloeists have lately proved that the
Greeks had been for uncounted centu-
rles in close connection with Egypt They
must. therefore, have had every op portunity
OF seeing and obtaining papyrus IL they chose
to do so. Even II they did not choose. tho ABB
sence OF what we now coneider suitable mate
rails can be shown By analogy never to have
The Aztccs, like the old Ionians. wrote or
painted numerous documents on the skins OF
beasts. Still, after all that Mr.. Lang is able to
say upon this point. the fact remains that the
Oldest proof OF the use OF writing by the
Greeks is On inscription which cannot be re-
ferred to date earlier than that OF
the first Psammetichus. or about the mid
die OF the seventh century b. @. Wolfs
corroborative argument, drawn from Ho-
mer's silence on the subject OF writ
ing. Is Justly pronounced OF little value.
He 10 silent about other matters with which ne
must have been acquainted. For instance. he
never mentioned signot rings. although schlie-
mann's excavations have shown that they
existed In Mycenp at q date which has been
pushed back as far ss 400 b. C. Again. MIR.
Lang finds 1t easy to demonstrate that poets
may write and have written when there is no
reading public for their works.
Proceeding with his assault upon VOLTS
positions, Mr.. Lang shows that about the
rhapsodists and their treatment OF the epics.
whether conservative or wilful. nothing Is
known. AS to tho Pisistratus
hypothesis. he does not go 80 far as to call 1t
A fable. but he 10 at no loss for evidence to
prove that the anecdote rests on no certain
foundation. On priori grounds tits unlikely
that the rhapsodists, II they depended on
heir exclusive knowledge OF tho Homeric
poems for their bread. would give UP their
,ne treasure to Pisistratus. However
hat may be. tho story is without au-
hentic contemporary testimony. and Is
liscredited by the silence Of all those who
,ould scarcely have omitted to record It For
he supposed capricious changes in manuscript |
.fter Pisistrstus no decisive proof Is forthcom-
ne. The faulty citations made by Plato and |
ARISTOTLE are compared to the quotations Of |
english poetry by Scott who frankly con-
essed that he did not know what was bor- |
owed and what was his own. Finally. the |
ssthetic caprice IN alteration attributed to
by Wolf 10 held by the great ma
ority Of German critics to be an error.
Thus far IN his review OF tho Woflan ny
othesis. Mr.. Lang has neglected tho Rrgu-
,ent that the unity and composition OF the
lad tobviously Inconsistent with the theory
( multiplex authorship are no such great
natter after all. To refutation Of this aver
tent the author devotes 140 pages. subject
,g to minute analysis one book Of the Had
flor another. Whom he comes to sum UP his
exclusions. We find him constrained to seri-
usly qualify the doctrine which he evidently
rould like to PROFOUND. namely. that the
hole OF tho Had is tho work OF a single mind.
hus he Acknowledges that "the little 'Eneid'
I Book XX. Is probable Interpolation. the
ate and motive and possibility OF which may
Q approximately explained. We have also
} abandon the later part Of the funeral games
8 probably un-Homeric. About the tenth
ook or Dolonela. We see that 1t may be sepa-
ate composition. but. II SO. 1t is one with little
1ison fetre. The books on fighting. from
levon to sixteen. have not improbably SUI
Al - l
nth these main deductions. Mr.. Lang ac-
epts the Had as one epic by one hand. The
Inconsistencies which are the basis OF the op-
osite theory seem to him reconcilable In
ANY cases: in others greatly exaggerated.
% doubts II they could ever have been de-
,cted by Homers audience OF ladies and war
ors. II they do exist, 1t Is more difficult to
count for their escaping the notice OF school
busted in preserving and i'm
rowing the poem than for their evading the
,rutiny OF the original author. 1t is pointed out
at q we'll known modern novel, Robbery
nder Arms" opens with o passage refer
nR to the conclusion. but quite contradictory
that conclusion when 1t is reached. This at
Ice strikes careful or even careless read
. but like misprints in proof sheets. such
inRs will escape tho wearied and ovsr-famiI-
r eye OF the author. Thus 1t seems more
'dded than that whole school OF Homeride
,re generally sound asleep. Finally. he re-
RS to fundamental argument. which has
und much favor in England. that the hypo-
esis Of q crowd OF great harm onious poets
,rking for centuries at the Had and ,
ntent to sink their own fame and identity
Homers 10 more difficult of belief than
9 opinion that one great poet may mako
casional slips and plumbers. Especially is
8 author OF this volume disinclIned to credit
0 selfdenying collaboration OF great poets
the Had after IT'S b. c.. when such poems I
the Cypria and Ethiopis began to be COM {
sed by individual poets whose names sur
re- These writer's did not add to the Had I
d sacrifice their fame: they rather strove to /
ite seauels In their own interests. On all ,
, grounds here indicated Mr.. Lang recurs to I
, ancient hypothesis Of a single surprising /
MUS who may have been able to write. or a
10. In the strength Of a potent memory, may I
W composed the poems without writing.
may have taught them to successor Q
vi. ,
n . much later chapter. dealing with the Il