will ever remain concealed."

Such are the words in which one of the most judicious German critics has

eloquently described the uncertainty in which the whole of the Homeric

question is involved. With no less truth and feeling he proceeds:--

"It seems here of chief importance to expect no more than the nature of

things makes possible. If the period of tradition in history is the region

of twilight, we should not expect in it perfect light. The creations of

genius always seem like miracles, because they are, for the most part,

created far out of the reach of observation. If we were in possession of

all the historical testimonies, we never could wholly explain the origin

of the Iliad and the Odyssey; for their origin, in all essential points,

must have remained the secret of the poet." (16)

From this criticism, which shows as much insight into the depths of human

nature as into the minute wire-drawings of scholastic investigation, let

us pass on to the main question at issue. Was Homer an individual?(17) or

were the Iliad and Odyssey the result of an ingenious arrangement of

fragments by earlier poets?

Well has Landor remarked: "Some tell us there were twenty Homers; some

deny that there was ever one. It were idle and foolish to shake the

contents of a vase, in order to let them settle at last. We are

perpetually labouring to destroy our delights, our composure, our devotion

to superior power. Of all the animals on earth we least know what is good

The Iliad of Homer