Of the incidents in the life of Homer, almost as little is known as of his parentage and birth-place. However, the general account is that he was for many years a school-master in Smyrna; that, being visited by one Mentes, the commander of a Leucadian ship, he was induced by him to leave his occupation and travel; that, in company with this captain, he visited the various countries around the shores of the Mediterranean, and at last was left at Ithaca, in consequence of a weakness in his eyes. While in this island, he was entertained by a man of fortune named Mentor, who narrated to him the stories upon which afterwards the Odyssey was founded. On the return of Mentes, he accompanied him to Colophon, where he became totally blind. He then returned to Smyrna, and afterwards removed to Cyme (called also Cuma), in Æolis, where he received great applause in the recitations of his poems, but no pecuniary reward; the people alleging that they could not maintain all the Homeroi, or blind men, and hence he obtained the name of Homer. Thence he went about from place to place, acquiring much wealth by his recitations, and died at the Island of Ios, one of the Cyclades, where he was buried.
The works attributed to Homer consist of the two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, of twenty-four books each, the Batrachomyomachia, or "Battle of the Frogs and Mice," a humorous, mock-heroic poem, and somewhat of a parody on the Iliad; the Margites, a satirical, personal satire, and about thirty Hymns. All of these but the two great epics are now, however, considered as spurious.
But it was left to modern skepticism (which seems to think that to doubt shows a higher order of intellect than to believe on evidence) to maintain the bold position that the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" were a collection of separate lays by different authors, arranged and put together for the first time during the tyranny and by the order of Pisistratus, at Athens, about 550 B.C. The chief supporters of this theory are the celebrated German scholars, Wolf and Heyne, who flourished about the year 1800.
Those who may desire to go into the subject fully will read Wolf's "Prolegomena," and the strictures of his great opponent, G.W. Nitzsch; but a succinct account of the argument may be found in Browne's "Classical Literature," and in the "History of Greek Literature," by Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd.
Even Wolf himself candidly declares that when he reads the "Iliad" he finds such unity of design, such harmony of coloring, and such consistency of character, that he is ready to give up his theories, and to be angry with himself for doubting the common faith in the personality of Homer.
Professor Felton, in his excellent edition of the "Iliad," thus remarks in the preface: "For my part, I prefer to consider it, as we have received it from ancient editors, as one poem, the work of one author, and that author Homer—the first and greatest of minstrels. As I understand the 'Iliad,' there is a unity of plan, a harmony of parts, a consistency among the different situations of the same character, which mark it as the production of one mind; but of a mind as versatile as the forms of nature, the aspects of life, and the combinations of powers, propensities and passions in man are various." In these views, the literary world now very generally concurs.
"The hypothesis to which the antagonists of Homer's personality must resort implies something more wonderful than the theory which they impugn. They profess to cherish the deepest veneration for the genius displayed in the poems. They agree, also, in the antiquity usually assigned to them; and they make this genius and this antiquity the arguments to prove that one man could not have composed them. They suppose, then, that in a barbarous age, instead of one being marvelously gifted, there were many; a mighty race of bards, such as the world has never since seen—a number of miracles instead of one. All experience is against this opinion. In various periods of the world great men have arisen, under very different circumstances, to astonish and delight it; but that the intuitive power should be so strangely diffused, at any one period, among a great number, who should leave no successors behind them, is unworthy of credit. And we are requested to believe this to have occurred in an age which those who maintain the theory regard as unfavorable to the poetic art! The common theory, independent of other proofs, is prima facie the most probable. Since the early existence of the works can not be doubted, it is easier to believe in one than in twenty Homers."—Talfourd.
ANCIENT AUTHORS.[ToList]