To return to the Wolfian theory. While it is to be confessed, that Wolf's

objections to the primitive integrity of the Iliad and Odyssey have never

been wholly got over, we cannot help discovering that they have failed to

enlighten us as to any substantial point, and that the difficulties with

which the whole subject is beset, are rather augmented than otherwise, if

we admit his hypothesis. Nor is Lachmann's(28) modification of his theory

any better. He divides the first twenty-two books of the Iliad into

sixteen different songs, and treats as ridiculous the belief that their

amalgamation into one regular poem belongs to a period earlier than the

age of Peisistratus. This, as Grote observes, "explains the gaps and

contradictions in the narrative, but it explains nothing else." Moreover,

we find no contradictions warranting this belief, and the so-called

sixteen poets concur in getting rid of the following leading men in the

first battle after the secession of Achilles: Elphenor, chief of the

Euboeans; Tlepolemus, of the Rhodians; Pandarus, of the Lycians; Odius, of

the Halizonians; Pirous and Acamas, of the Thracians. None of these heroes

again make their appearance, and we can but agree with Colonel Mure, that

"it seems strange that any number of independent poets should have so

harmoniously dispensed with the services of all six in the sequel." The

discrepancy, by which Pylaemenes, who is represented as dead in the fifth

book, weeps at his son's funeral in the thirteenth, can only be regarded

as the result of an interpolation.

Grote, although not very distinct in stating his own opinions on the

subject, has done much to clearly show the incongruity of the Wolfian

The Iliad of Homer