Homeric Criticism in the Fourth Century B.C.

Author(s): Henrietta V. Apfel

Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 69 (1938),
pp. 245-258
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283178
Accessed: 18/07/2009 05:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org
Vol. lxix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 245

X.-Homeric Criticism in the Fourth Century B.C.

HENRIETTA V. APFEL
HUNTER COLLEGE

Most Greek writers admired and imitated Homer. Yet it

was not in the nature of the Greeks to worship blindly, and
so we find criticism of Homer at a very early period. This is
both favorable and unfavorable. There is an attempt to
analyze his beauty, to find out why he is great, so that others
may use the same methods to achieve the same results. Yet
both in ancient and modern times, it has proved impossible
to discover Homer's secret, probably because of his very
simplicity. But Greek criticism continued to make the at-
tempt, as long as it lasted.
The iconoclasts who discovered that Homer had faults also
appeared early. But the first objections came not on critical,
but on moral grounds. Homer was so generally accepted as
a textbook that it is not surprising that the philosophers
should first wonder and then be concerned with his influence
on the young. Later on, they were reinforced by those who
looked for petty flaws in style, mistakes in grammar and
similar errors. These faults were to be found in abundance,
and so the chorus of critics grows. In the fourth century
B.C., there is a rapid increase both in vehemence and amount
of unfavorable criticism.
I shall consider the principal critical writers of the fourth
century in chronological order. I have confined this paper
to those writers who make literary criticism one of their chief
interests, and in the case of Aristotle and Xenophon to those
works in which literature is an important topic.
Isocrates, the dean of fourth century writers, mentions
Homer seven times. He is not one of the group opposed to
Homer; in fact in the Helen (65), he suggests divine inspira-
tion in the epics, saying that Helen, in a dream, bade Homer
246 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

write about the Trojan War. [He declares also that it was
partly through Homer's art, but mostly through Helen that
the poet's work became so ilrafpob6Tov Kal rapa 7raTatv&voaT/aar7v.]
Elsewhere he says (12.263) that Homer outranks all others
in his field, and on two occasions (12.18,33) mentions him
with Hesiod and "the others", as if only these two were
worthy of names. Isocrates is representative of the analytic
group of critics, giving part of the credit for Homer's fame
to the fact that he praised Greeks who fought barbarians
(4.159), and part to his choice of XoyovsuUvOo6eoaraovs(2.48).
He mentions (13.2) that Homer has a very great reputation
for wisdom. All this is representative criticism, similar to
that of earlier centuries.
The first sign, in this century, of the destructive criticism
which was to become so popular can be found in Xenophon,
who admires Homer, and represents Socrates as doing so;
yet he is surprised that Homer would praise Odysseus, at a
time when the hero struck the men of the lower ranks (Mem.
1.2.18; the Homeric passage quoted is II. 2.188-191, 198-202;
the special reference is to 199 rov o-KrTrpw ek'aoaaev). But this
is only one citation; there are several with favorable mention.
Xenophon (Mem. 1.4.3) makes Aristippus put Homer in a
list of those specially admired for wisdom. Socrates is made
to say (Symposium 4.6) that the poet was almost the wisest
of men, and that from him one can learn the arts of the dema-
gogue or general or king, or even spearman or charioteer.
We also find Socrates (Mem. 2.6.10-11) quoting from Homer
as an authority.' In the Apology (30), Socrates prophesies,
affirming that Homer says those who are to die can tell the
future. In the Symposium (4.45), Niceratus says in jest that
by spending he would come to need naught, and then quotes
two lines from the Iliad, which list possessions (II. 9.122-123
or 264-265). Elsewhere (Symposium 8.30), Socrates defends
Homer, declaring that it is clear, even in Homer, that Gany-
mede was carried to Olympus not for body, but for soul, that
I The song of the Sirens (Od. 12.184).
Vol. Ixix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 247

sweetness is honored among the gods; Xenophon then quotes

yavvTrat6e T'aKOVWo
(II. 20.405, not an exact quotation) and
rbVKva4peoatArbea elS(oW(II. 17.325 or 24.382, but not an exact
quotation of either). Xenophon knew the poet well, and
quotes him in his historical works. He was not apparently
dependent on Socrates for his opinions in regard to Homer.2
The first bitter criticism comes with the philosophers.
Antisthenes is more than anxious to excuse Homer. He
makes use of allegory and other methods of explanation for
the statements that seem immoral. For example, Antisthenes
(Scholia ad Od. 9.525, 328 Buttmann3) gave a reason for
Odysseus' impious remark (Od. 9.525) that the Earthshaker
would not cure Polyphemus' eye, by asserting that the phy-
sician of the gods is not Poseidon, but Apollo. He also said
(Scholia ad Od. 1.1, 9 Buttmann 3) that Homer was careful
not to call Odysseus wise, for the wise are also good; Odysseus
was 1roXbrporos,because he knew many tongues.The philosopher
also defines the term, as describing partly a use of words,
partly a type of character. There had been attacks on Iliad
11.636 aiuoyrJTtaetLpev;these Antisthenes parried (Scholia ad II.
11.636), saying there was no reference to weight in the hand,
but that the line meant he carried his wine well.
Plato presents in himself the conflict between the two schools
of Homeric criticism. In his works, on the one hand, we find
such remarks as that in Cratylus (391C) ,rap' 'Olr1povxpr
tuavaveiLv; on the other, the long passage in the Republic
(377D-394B) where Plato regretfully bans the poet from his
ideal state. It is true that Homer only shares in the fate of
the other poets, but he serves as chief exemplar of the faults
that cause Plato to act in this fashion. Yet Plato's own style
was filled with reminiscences of Homer, and when he makes
Socrates say that a certain friendship and respect, felt from
childhood, prevent him from speaking ill of Homer, that the
2Cf. Ernst von Leusch, "Homer and Xenophon," Philol. xi (1856), 714.
3 Philipp Buttmann, Scholia Antiqua in Homeri Odysseam (Berlin, in Mylian
Library, 1821).
248 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

poet is the first teacher and leader of all the poets, yet no
man should be honored instead of truth,4 we may well believe
that Plato speaks for himself as well as for his master.
The arguments against the poet are best summed up in
the Republic (377D-394B, 599B-607A). Here Plato declares
that Homer and Hesiod and the other poets say what is false,
i.e. that they speak ill of the gods and of heroes, that Homer
in particular speaks of civil war among them (a very bad
example for citizens). God is good, and the young have no
judgment; therefore one must not learn from Homer when he
makes a mistake and speaks carelessly. There follows a long
list of examples of such carelessness, but while I feel a succinct
summary of this well-known passage in Plato is necessary, I
shall not give all the quotations.5
Elsewhere in the Republic (334A-B), Plato objects to the
definition of justice as a kind of stealing for the aid of friends
or harming of enemies. This definition he arrives at by listen-
ing to Homer, who presents Autolycus, grandfather of Odys-
seus, as delighted when the latter surpasses all men in stealing.
And near the close of the Republic (612B), the philosopher
concludes that we have found justice in itself the best reward,
not pay nor honor that come from justice, as Homer and
Hesiod say. Plato also criticises Homer for moral slips in the
Leges and elsewhere.
But there is another cause for criticism of Homer. From
Plato's point of view, it was equally serious that his method
was that of usiurlats,not btLrlas. In the Republic (392E-394B),
Socrates is made to parody Homer, in an attempt to show
that his work is mimetic in character, and to prove that LAU-aLS
is dangerous. Later on (Republic 599B-600E), he says that
is an imitation in the third degree, i.e., an imitation of
tLis7rlaLs
4 Republic 595 B-C.
5A careful discussion of most of these quotations, as well as those from other
works of Plato which bear on his view of poetry, will be found in William C.
Greene, "Plato's View of Poetry," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology xxIX
(1918), 1-75, and also in C. L. Brownson, Plato's Studies and Criticisms of the
Poets (Boston, The Gorham Press, 1920).
Vol. lxix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 249

life, which is an imitation of the 'ideas'. Homer, he says,

was never lawgiver or general or statesman, but more on the
order of a painter. He admits (Republic 606E-607A) that
Homer was most poetic, but adds, somewhat sadly, I believe,
that into the ideal state one must admit poets only for hymns
to the gods and encomia for good men.
Yet this same Plato who speaks so harshly of poets can
recognize both the beauty of poetry and its power to teach.
Even in the Republic (404B), he says that one can learn from
Homer. In the Symposium (209D), he speaks of Homer,
Hesiod and the other good poets. He refers (Alc. 2.147B) to
Homer as OELorarTv re Kalt ao(tcoarov. He makes him the source
of tragedy, and frequently quotes from him as an authority.
Homer is also the subject of two of the shorter dialogues,
the Hippias Minor and the Ion. The first is an argument
between Socrates and the sophist Hippias, as to whether
Achilles or Odysseus is the better man. The Ion is one of
the places where Socrates is made to show that the person
inspired (like the rhapsodist or poet) is not necessarily wise.
He proves to Ion, a rhapsodist, that his understanding of
Homer is a divine gift, and not an art or knowledge of the
facts in Homer's work.
There are many passages, in which Plato proves his own
familiarity with the epics by quoting from them. He uses
them for illustrative material, and to show both his objections
and their reasons. But the criticism he makes I have summed
up, and, as can be seen, it is most contradictory. This can
only be explained by the fact that there is a conflict in the
philosopher himself, a conflict between his affection for the
poetic master, his appreciation of that master's unmatched
style, and his realization of the moral evil contained in the
sugar-coating of the poetry. And philosophy and poetry had
quarrelled early in history. Stefan Weinstock 6 has traced
that enmity. He declares that earlier philosophers attempted
6 "Die Platonische Homerkritik und ihre Nachwirkung," Philol. LXXXII
(1927), 121-153.
250 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

to compromise, but that Plato gave up the attempt, and

accepted the consequent loss of the beauties of poetry.7
Plato's love for Homer is proven not only by the frequency
of the quotations, but by the intimate knowledge he has of
the poet; his words are almost invariably right, according to
the better MSS., and in some cases throw light on doubtful
passages.8
Alcidamas, the great rival of Isocrates, follows Plato chrono-
logically. He speaks (Arist. Rhetoric 2.23.1398b) of Homer
as a proof that all honor wisdom, since the Chians claim
Homer, who is not their countryman.
The flood of anti-Homer criticism reached its height in
Zoilus, who won for himself the title of 'OA,7pot4o'ra, because
of the many types of faults he found in Homer. His first
objection is the same which troubled Plato; the poet is impious.
This we find illustrated among the few fragments of Zoilus.
He objects (Scholia ad Il. 18.22) to Achilles' tears over
Patroclus: ". . . he should have known before that war-
dangers are common, and he didn't have to take death terribly
and cry like a woman. So barbarians do; yet Hecabe was
not such at Hector's death." He objects also (Heraclid. Pont.
All. 14) to Iliad 1.50, where Apollo strikes first the mules and
dogs: ". . . not thus without judgment was the destruction
of Apollo's anger, heedless of living men, nor his heart so
careless as to strike mules and dogs." And again, he does not
like (Scholia ad Od. 8.326) the story of Ares and Aphrodite:
"Hermes prays before his father and all the gods to be given
Aphrodite. The gods of the poets are not philosophers, or
the poet is jesting."
The second fault which Zoilus found in Homer was that he
described impossible or unlikely events, such as (Scholia ad
II. 5.7) the line where "He makes fire burn from Diomedes'
shoulders. This is laughable, for the hero almost caught fire."
7 Cf. William C. Greene, op. cit. (see note 5).
8 See G. E. Howes, "Homeric Quotations in Plato and Aristotle," Harvard
Studies in Classical Philology vi (1895), 153-237.
Vol. lxix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 251

Another illustration is (Scholia ad II. 5.20): "The poet made

Idaeus leave horses and chariot and run. Yet he would have
done better with the horses." Yet another (Scholia ad II.
10.274): ". . . the heron which Athena sent during the night
expedition, which Odysseus does not see, but hears flapping.
Why should Odysseus rejoice when he hears it? For a voice
is a signal and opposed to those who choose to hide." To
Zoilus, the weighing of the Fates (II. 22.210) seemed ridiculous.
He asks (Scholia ad II. 22.210): "Did the Fates sit or stand
in the scales?", and, when Homer says (II. 23.100) the spirit
went like smoke KarmaxOovos,he comments (Scholia ad II.
23.100): "Smoke is borne up!". He objects (Scholia ad II.
21.256) that "Achilles, having immortal horses, did not use
them at the right time" (apparently a reference to II. 19.392-
424, where the river-god chases Achilles). The Homeric gods
seem inconsistent to him, when (Scholia ad Plato Hipparch.
9.21 Bekker 9) " . . . they agree about vengeance, but Odys-
seus is saved everywhere, and escapes vengeance with the
help of Athena." He regards the entire story of Priam's trip
to ransom Hector as incredible (Scholia ad II. 24.652).
Third in the list of Homeric flaws comes grammatical care-
lessness, such as the use of singular for plural, or plural for
singular, as Iliad 1.129 SZonfor 8r (Scholia ad II. 1.129).
Then we find geographical errors, as when (I. 2.592) the poet
speaks of Alpheus in Pylos, when it really flows from Tenedos
(Strabo 6.271). Finally, there are miscellaneous ideas which
seem ridiculous to Zoilus, as (Scholia ad Od. 9.60): ". . . from
each ship a man was lost," and the metamorphosis of Odysseus'
men by Circe into swine, which (Longin. 9.14)" . . Zoilus
called KXaiovraxotptl a."
It may be seen that Zoilus' criticism is much more adverse
than that of earlier writers; that he has none of Plato's re-
luctance to attack, and, in fact, that his whole purpose is to
9 Immanuel Bekker, In Platonem a Se Editum CommentariaCritica. Accedunt
Scholia (Berlin, G. E. Reimer, 1823).
252 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

hunt for poorly-handled details. If more of his work were

extant, these facts would be even more obvious.
The great orators, Aeschines and Demosthenes, are not pri-
marily interested in morals; they are therefore friendly to
Homer. Aeschines (1.133) uses an illustration from Homer,
saying that ". . . he will not hold off from the poems of
Homer or the heroic names, but will sing the friendship of
Patroclus and Achilles, famed through love." In the same
work (141), he says: "I will speak first about Homer, whom
we put among the eldest and wisest of poets. For he often
recalls the love of Achilles and Patroclus, but hides the name
of the friendship, considering it evident to the educated among
his hearers. For he says somewhere 10that Achilles, lament-
ing the loss of Patroclus as something shameful, says that he
unwittingly lied to Menoetius, father of Patroclus. For he
said that he would bring him back safely to Opon." Aeschines
then quotes the lines in full, and goes on: "Hearing that he
could go home safely, but that if he took vengeance he must
die, he chose his promise rather than safety. ... So that you
may hear the poet's opinions, the secretary will read you
Homer's words. Read first about the vengeance on Hector."
Iliad 18.333-335 is read. "Read what Patroclus says about
being buried together, and about their association." Iliad
23.77-82, 83-91 is read, along with some lines following the
same ideas, but not in our MSS. "Read what Thetis says
about his safety, if he gives up vengeance." Iliad 18.95-99
is read. Here is Aeschines using Homer as a model for men
to follow, and praising Achilles, and pointing out his deeds as
examples. Plato had regarded Achilles as especially bad for
a model, and we have seen what Zoilus had to say about him.1
Demosthenes (61.25) calls on Homer for an example, with
the words ". . . the greatest witness one could call, the poetry
of Homer."
10Iliad 18.324-329.
n See p. 250.
Vol. Ixix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 253

Aristotle seems to have regarded it as his task to defend the

great epics against the attacks of Plato. He did this espe-
cially in a work which we have only in fragmentary form,
Homeric Problems, and in his two major works on literary
questions, the Rhetoric and the Poetics. For the last two,
indeed, he needed Homer's works for examples for his pupils.l2
But in both, he also considers Homer from the critical point
of view. He discusses (Poetics 3.1-2), with approval, the
mimetic type of writing which Plato had condemned. He
and seems to believe
says that Homer's t,iutatLsis of aTrovSaLov,
that this makes it valuable. In fact, later on (Poetics 24.7),
he praises the poet, because he knew that the author should
say little, and instead should make his characters speak, giving
them iOrj.
But Aristotle's greatest service to the epic poet lay in his
defence against the attacks of the moralists. Like earlier
critics, he could find good examples in Homer,l3 but he also
devoted an entire work to the solution of the problem pre-
sented by the poet, and, in addition, chapter 25 of the Poetics,
the defence of poetry, really has Homer in mind. As M.
Carroll says,14 Aristotle thought of the attacks on Homer as
attacks on the very nature of poetry. Mr. Carroll points out
that Aristotle had twelve explanations for the faults found in
Homer, but they fall under three important heads: those from
consideration of the objects imitated, those from consideration
of artistic correctness, and those from consideration of the
method of representation. These are all carefully considered
in the Poetics 25, with examples of typical attacks on and
possible defences of chosen quotations from Homer.15
12 For a
complete list of Homeric quotations by Aristotle, as well as allusions
to the poet by the philosopher, in the Rhetoric and Poetics, see W. S. Hinman,
Literary Quotation and Allusion in the Rhetoric, Poetics, and Nicomachean Ethics
of Aristotle (Staten Island, N. Y., 1935), 39-46, 106-117.
13 See Hinman,
op. cit. (see note 12).
14 M.
Carroll, Aristotle's Poetics c. 25 in the Light of the Homeric Scholia
(Baltimore, J. Murphy and Co., 1895).
16See Hinman, op. cit. (see note 12).
 254 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

The work which Aristotle devoted to the defence of Homer

has unfortunately come down to us only in fragmentary form.
There is sufficient however to show us his methods, which
indeed he had already shown in Chapter 25 of the Poetics.
He explains (Scholia ad II. 2.73, iii.91 Dindorf 16) that Aga-
memnon meets little opposition to his plan to go home, because
it is likely the men were worn from the plague. Odysseus is
represented (II. 2.183) as going without his shirt; most im-
proper! But Aristotle (Scholia ad II. 2.183, iII.102 Dindorf 16)
says the crowd would wonder at this, and become silent in
amazement, and so his voice would carry further. Many
wondered because Homer speaks (II. 2.649) of "hundred-citied
Crete ", and elsewhere (Od. 19.173) of "ninety cities in Crete."
But Aristotle (Scholia ad II. 2.649, III.144 Dindorf 16) says
"one-hundred" means many. The critics asked why Helen
(II. 3.236-242) asks for her brothers; the war had long raged,
they could be dead, and Priam had not asked for them. But
Aristotle (Scholia ad 11. 3.236) says perhaps she was kept from
seeing the warriors by Alexander, and that Homer makes her
ignorant of their whereabouts, so that her character may
appear better. In connection with the breaking of oaths
(Scholia ad 1I. 3.276, ini.178 Dindorf 16) Aristotle declares that
what the Trojans did was not FTrLpKELV,since Paris was not
killed, nor did the poet use the word as he does elsewhere, but
instead says KarapaToL. Another inconsistency-(II. 3.277)
reXLtos6' os 7raTvr' eop4s, and (Od. 12.374-375) WKEa 5' 'rEXLc'
'T7reptovt .a'yyeXos )\X6e Aagurerfl ravbvre7rXos, 6 ol p6as EKTaV ETracpot
(Why should an all-seeing Sun need a messenger to tell him
about the loss of his own cattle?)-is explained by saying
(Scholia ad II. 3.277, III.178 Dindorf 16) that Lampetia is to
the Sun, as sight is to a man. Aristotle explains (Scholia ad
II. 3.441, iii.190 Dindorf 16) that fear and danger make a man
desirous; this is why Alexander goes to bed right after the
battle (II. 3.441). Elsewhere he says (Scholia ad II. 4.88,
III.200 Dindorf16) that Athena picks an ally to break the
16Wilhelm Dindorf, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Oxford, The Clarendon
Press, 1875).
Vol. lxix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 255

truce, since all the Trojans hated Paris. She picks Pandarus,
because he is fond of money, as is shown by his leaving his
horses at home (II. 5.202), and his race is, even now, oath-
breaking. When men asked why (II. 4.296) the horsemen
were drawn up first, with the horses and chariots, Aristotle
explained (Scholia ad II. 4.297, mii.212 Dindorf 16) the horse-
men were not in front, but on the wing, then came the foot-
soldiers, and that the Boeotians drew up in this fashion. He
explained Glaucus' folly in giving Diomedes his golden armour
(II. 6.234) by saying (Scholia ad II. 6.234, III.296 Dindorf 16)
that armour is for use, not for honor. He defends Menelaus
from the charge of being inconsistent, when (II. 7.93-102) he
is first eager to fight Hector, and then is not among the nine
heroes who come forward. He says (Scholia ad II. 7.93,
ii.321 Dindorf 16) that the first offer was made through vexa-
tion; he had not done so well with Alexander, and had lately
been wounded by Pandarus; moreover his death would mean
the end of the war; with Paris this had been an even chance,
but with Hector this was not true. When asked why Ajax
told Hector (II. 7.228) that Achilles was angry, Aristotle says
(Scholia ad II. 7.228, III.328 Dindorf 16) that he did not want
Hector to think that Achilles shrunk from battle, and that he
believed that he and the other heroes were better than Achilles.
If the critics complained that, although all were present, Aga-
memnon addressed (II. 9.17) "leaders and counsellors of the
Greeks", Aristotle replied (Scholia ad II. 9.17, iii.371 Din-
dorf16) the people were masters of hearing, the leaders of
doing. He justifies the dragging of Hector's body (II. 24.15)
by saying (Scholia ad II. 24.15, iii.334 Dindorf 16) that it was
the custom, as it still was in his own time, in Thessaly to drag
men's bodies around the tombs of those they had murdered.
Critics objected, when (Od. 5.93) Calypso gave Hermes a mixed
drink, since the gods drink only nectar, but Aristotle (Scholia
ad Od. 5.93, 183 Buttmann 3) says Kepavvvult means to pour as
well as to mix. Since the Phaeacians were descended from
Poseidon, and so related to the Cyclops, why tell them (Od.
256 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

9.345) of his blinding? Aristotle (Scholia ad Od. 9.345) says

Odysseus knew they were enemies of the Cyclops. For the
passage which Antisthenes so ingeniously explained (Od.
9.525),17Aristotle has another explanation; that Odysseus does
not mean that Poseidon could not heal the Cyclops, but that
he would not, because of Polyphemus' wickedness. Yet he
thinks (Scholia ad Od. 9.525, 328 Buttmann 3) that Odysseus
should have left the punishment to the god; for this reason
Poseidon took vengeance on him. To those who said that
Odysseus should have revealed himself to Penelope rather than
to Telemachus, Aristotle replied (Scholia ad Od. 5 extr.) that
he had to tell those who had to share the danger, and also that
Telemachus had always taken part in the banquets, but, if
Penelope ceased to sit alone and wail, it might cause sus-
picion. He suggested (Scholia ad Od. 7.257) that Odysseus
refused immortality (Od. 7.257-258), because he didn't believe
Calypso, or that he only pretended it was offered to him, in
order to appear greater to the Phaeacians. He points out
(Ath. 13.556D) that Menelaus was never seen with women
in the Iliad, though all others were so shown, because Homer
wanted to show that he respected his wife Helen.
This defence is interesting, partly because it shows how the
critics were following Zoilus' example, and attacking Homer
on all sorts of petty excuses, to which Aristotle must find
answers. Some minor points troubled the philosopher him-
self. For example, the portent explained by Calchas (II.
2.305) does not seem clear to him. The objection that he
makes (Scholia ad I1. 2.305, III.115 Dindorf 16) is that the
strangest part of the omen, i.e. the changing of the snake to
stone, is not explained at all, and the rest did not seem unusual
enough to be a portent. He wonders, too (Scholia ad II.
10.198, III.431 Dindorf 16), why the council was held outside
the walls, when it would be safer within. He has an explana-
tion: that there was little risk of a night attack, and that it
was the generals' part to guard against disturbances. Once
more, he asks (Scholia ad II. 19.108) why Hera asks for an
17 See p. 247.
Vol. Ixix] Homeric Criticism in Fourth CenturyB.C. 257

oath rather than for a nod from Zeus. He thinks, however,

that this may be explained, because Zeus takes the oath only
under strong pressure, and knowing that he will regret it.
He thinks, too (Scholia ad II. 24.569, III.356 Dindorf 16), that
the character of Achilles is anomalous, and wonders (Scholia
ad Od. 9.106, 312 Buttmann 3) how Polyphemus was a Cyclops,
since neither of his parents was of that race.
Like Plato, Aristotle frequently quotes from Homer to ex-
press his own ideas in the familiar words of the poet. But this
hardly comes under the head of literary criticism.18
The text of Homer which Aristotle used apparently differed
considerably from extant MSS. It is true that he often quoted
only a few words, or only those which he needed to prove his
point, regardless of their sense in the positions where he quoted
them. He sometimes deliberately deformed a passage to suit
his purpose.19 Richard Wachsmuth20 thinks some of the
Scholia attributed to Aristotle are not his work, although they
were probably written by men acquainted with it. He agrees,
however, that Aristotle had a text that differed from ours.
Lycurgus declares (Kara AEoKpacprovs 102-103): "I want to
praise Homer to you. For your fathers thought the poet was
so important that they made a law that, each five-year period,
his words alone of all the poets should be rhapsodized. Thus
they showed before the Greeks that they chose the fairest of
deeds. For laws do not teach through prohibitions, but enjoin
us what to do, and poets, imitating life, choose the fairest of
deeds, and persuade men with word and show. For Hector
speaks for his fatherland ...." (Here Iliad 15.494-499 is
quoted.) Lycurgus then continues: "Hearing these words,
your ancestors were so zealous towards courage that not alone
in behalf of their fatherland, but all Greece, as common, they
wished to die." It is important that we find here an attitude
18For examples, see Hinman,
op. cit. (see note 12).
19See the discussions of A. Rimer, "Die Homercitate und die Homerische
Fragen des Aristoteles," Sitzungsbericht der K6nigl. Akad. der Wissensch.
(Munich, 1884), 264-314, and G. E. Howes, "Homeric Quotations in Plato and
Aristotle," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology vi (1895), 153-237.
20R. Wachsmuth, De Aristotelis Studiis Homericis
(Berlin, Schade, 1863).
258 Henrietta V. Apfel [1938

toward Homer diametrically opposed to that of Plato, one

which searches in Homer for inspiration and good example.
For Lycurgus is a statesman, not a philosopher, and he prob-
ably represents the attitude of the average citizen.
Crantor, third head of the Academy, seems to have admired
Homer. The only extant fragment dealing with the subject
speaks of the poet (Plu. Consolatio ad Apollinem 7.104D),
naming him, along with other "old and wise men ", of whom
the first, he says, is godlike Homer, who says (Od. 18.130)
oVuev aKL5voTEpov 'yaa KTX.
rpEceL avOpwTrTOL
and elsewhere (II. 6.145)
Tr7 yeve7)?vpePEveLS
Tv6Et61r/uey&4Ovle/, KTX.

So beautifully does he use images of human life; this is clear

by what he says elsewhere (II. 21.463)
fpporcv 6' EVEKCL
7rToXep/LELV6eLX\v, ol q4VXXoaOLVOLKcOTS.

Other important fourth century critics (Aristippus, Speusip-

pus, Diogenes, Theophrastus) either do not mention Homer at
all, or do not give their opinion of the works.
In considering the literary criticism here collected, it will at
once be noted that there is a serious cleavage. The orators
and rhetoricians, interested in the training of good writers, can
see only Homer's matchless style, while many of the philoso-
phers, led by Plato, wishing to train good men, are unaffected
by that style, because of the bad moral effect the poet can so
easily have on the young men. No sooner did this attitude
appear, however, than other philosophers, of whom Aristotle
was the most important, came to the defence, finding good
training to be drawn from Homer. We see also men like
Zoilus, who delight in proving by petty fault-finding that there
was a lack of consistency and good sense in the poet which
marred the enjoyment of reading his work. Thus they hoped
to turn people from reading the great poet, and also from the
baneful influence of that reading. This fault-finding also
breeds defenders, and in most cases the defence is as petty as
the attack.