Odyssey , livre ebook

Pub One Info - Homer

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

191 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

pubOne.info thank you for your continued support and wish to present you this new edition. Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, as knowledge is of scepticism. To be content with what we at present know, is, for the most part, to shut our ears against conviction; since, from the very gradual character of our education, we must continually forget, and emancipate ourselves from, knowledge previously acquired; we must set aside old notions and embrace fresh ones; and, as we learn, we must be daily unlearning something which it has cost us no small labour and anxiety to acquire.

Informations

Publié par	Pub One Info
Date de parution	23 octobre 2010
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9782819917069
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0100€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

INTRODUCTION
Scepticism is as much the result of knowledge, asknowledge is of scepticism. To be content with what we at presentknow, is, for the most part, to shut our ears against conviction;since, from the very gradual character of our education, we mustcontinually forget, and emancipate ourselves from, knowledgepreviously acquired; we must set aside old notions and embracefresh ones; and, as we learn, we must be daily unlearning somethingwhich it has cost us no small labour and anxiety to acquire.
And this difficulty attaches itself more closely toan age in which progress has gained a strong ascendency overprejudice, and in which persons and things are, day by day, findingtheir real level, in lieu of their conventional value. The sameprinciples which have swept away traditional abuses, and which aremaking rapid havoc among the revenues of sinecurists, and strippingthe thin, tawdry veil from attractive superstitions, are working asactively in literature as in society. The credulity of one writer,or the partiality of another, finds as powerful a touchstone and aswholesome a chastisement in the healthy scepticism of a temperateclass of antagonists, as the dreams of conservatism, or theimpostures of pluralist sinecures in the Church. History andtradition, whether of ancient or comparatively recent times, aresubjected to very different handling from that which the indulgenceor credulity of former ages could allow. Mere statements arejealously watched, and the motives of the writer form as importantan ingredient in the analysis or his history, as the facts herecords. Probability is a powerful and troublesome test; and it isby this troublesome standard that a large portion of historicalevidence is sifted. Consistency is no less pertinacious andexacting in its demands. In brief, to write a history, we must knowmore than mere facts. Human nature, viewed under an introduction ofextended experience, is the best help to the criticism of humanhistory. Historical characters can only be estimated by thestandard which human experience, whether actual or traditionary,has furnished. To form correct views of individuals we must regardthem as forming parts of a great whole - we must measure them bytheir relation to the mass of beings by whom they are surrounded;and, in contemplating the incidents in their lives or conditionwhich tradition has handed down to us, we must rather consider thegeneral bearing of the whole narrative, than the respectiveprobability of its details.
It is unfortunate for us, that, of some of thegreatest men, we know least, and talk most. Homer, Socrates, andShakespere have, perhaps, contributed more to the intellectualenlightenment of mankind than any other three writers who could benamed, and yet the history of all three has given rise to aboundless ocean of discussion, which has left us little save theoption of choosing which theory or theories we will follow. Thepersonality of Shakespere is, perhaps, the only thing in whichcritics will allow us to believe without controversy; but uponeverything else, even down to the authorship of plays, there ismore or less of doubt and uncertainty. Of Socrates we know aslittle as the contradictions of Plato and Xenophon will allow us toknow. He was one of the dramatis personae in two dramas as unlikein principles as in style. He appears as the enunciator of opinionsas different in their tone as those of the writers who have handedthem down. When we have read Plato or Xenophon, we think we knowsomething of Socrates; when we have fairly read and examined both,we feel convinced that we are something worse than ignorant.
It has been an easy, and a popular expedient of lateyears, to deny the personal or real existence of men and thingswhose life and condition were too much for our belief. This system- which has often comforted the religious sceptic, and substitutedthe consolations of Strauss for those of the New Testament - hasbeen of incalculable value to the historical theorists of the lastand present centuries. To question the existence of Alexander theGreat, would be a more excusable act, than to believe in that ofRomulus. To deny a fact related in Herodotus, because it isinconsistent with a theory developed from an Assyrian inscriptionwhich no two scholars read in the same way, is more pardonable,than to believe in the good-natured old king whom the elegant penof Florian has idealized - Numa Pompilius.
Scepticism has attained its culminating point withrespect to Homer, and the state of our Homeric knowledge may bedescribed as a free permission to believe any theory, provided wethrow overboard all written tradition, concerning the author orauthors of the Iliad and Odyssey. What few authorities exist on thesubject, are summarily dismissed, although the arguments appear torun in a circle. "This cannot be true, because it is not true; andthat is not true, because it cannot be true." Such seems to be thestyle, in which testimony upon testimony, statement upon statement,is consigned to denial and oblivion.
It is, however, unfortunate that the professedbiographies of Homer are partly forgeries, partly freaks ofingenuity and imagination, in which truth is the requisite mostwanting. Before taking a brief review of the Homeric theory in itspresent conditions, some notice must be taken of the treatise onthe Life of Homer which has been attributed to Herodotus.
According to this document, the city of Cumae inAEolia was, at an early period, the seat of frequent immigrationsfrom various parts of Greece. Among the immigrants was Menapolus,the son of Ithagenes. Although poor, he married, and the result ofthe union was a girl named Critheis. The girl was left an orphan atan early age, under the guardianship of Cleanax, of Argos. It is tothe indiscretion of this maiden that we "are indebted for so muchhappiness." Homer was the first fruit of her juvenile frailty, andreceived the name of Melesigenes from having been born near theriver Meles in Boeotia, whither Critheis had been transported inorder to save her reputation.
"At this time," continues our narrative, "therelived at Smyrna a man named Phemius, a teacher of literature andmusic, who, not being married, engaged Critheis to manage hishousehold, and spin the flax he received as the price of hisscholastic labours. So satisfactory was her performance of thistask, and so modest her conduct, that he made proposals ofmarriage, declaring himself, as a further inducement, willing toadopt her son, who, he asserted, would become a clever man, if hewere carefully brought up."
They were married; careful cultivation ripened thetalents which nature had bestowed, and Melesigenes soon surpassedhis schoolfellows in every attainment, and, when older, rivalledhis preceptor in wisdom. Phemius died, leaving him sole heir to hisproperty, and his mother soon followed. Melesigenes carried on hisadopted father's school with great success, exciting the admirationnot only of the inhabitants of Smyrna, but also of the strangerswhom the trade carried on there, especially in the exportation ofcorn, attracted to that city. Among these visitors, one Mentes,from Leucadia, the modern Santa Maura, who evinced a knowledge andintelligence rarely found in those times, persuaded Melesigenes toclose his school, and accompany him on his travels. He promised notonly to pay his expenses, but to furnish him with a furtherstipend, urging, that, "While he was yet young, it was fitting thathe should see with his own eyes the countries and cities whichmight hereafter be the subjects of his discourses." Melesigenesconsented, and set out with his patron, "examining all thecuriosities of the countries they visited, and informing himself ofeverything by interrogating those whom he met." We may alsosuppose, that he wrote memoirs of all that he deemed worthy ofpreservation. Having set sail from Tyrrhenia and Iberia, theyreached Ithaca. Here Melesigenes, who had already suffered in hiseyes, became much worse; and Mentes, who was about to leave forLeucadia, left him to the medical superintendence of a friend ofhis, named Mentor, the son of Alcinor. Under his hospitable andintelligent host, Melesigenes rapidly became acquainted with thelegends respecting Ulysses, which afterwards formed the subject ofthe Odyssey. The inhabitants of Ithaca assert, that it was herethat Melesigenes became blind, but the Colophonians make their citythe seat of that misfortune. He then returned to Smyrna, where heapplied himself to the study of poetry.
But poverty soon drove him to Cumae. Having passedover the Hermaean plain, he arrived at Neon Teichos, the New Wall,a colony of Cumae. Here his misfortunes and poetical talent gainedhim the friendship of one Tychias, an armourer. "And up to mytime," continues the author, "the inhabitants showed the placewhere he used to sit when giving a recitation of his verses; andthey greatly honoured the spot. Here also a poplar grew, which theysaid had sprung up ever since Melesigenes arrived."
But poverty still drove him on, and he went by wayof Larissa, as being the most convenient road. Here, the Cumanssay, he composed an epitaph on Gordius, king of Phrygia, which hashowever, and with greater probability, been attributed to Cleobulusof Lindus.
Arrived at Cumae, he frequented the conversazionesof the old men, and delighted all by the charms of his poetry.Encouraged by this favourable reception, he declared that, if theywould allow him a public maintenance, he would render their citymost gloriouslv renowned. They avowed their willingness to supporthim in the measure he proposed, and procured him an audience in thecouncil. Having made the speech, with the purport of which ourauthor has forgotten to acquaint us, he retired, and left them todebate respecting the answer to be given to his proposal.
The greater part of the assembly seemed favourableto the poet's demand, but one man "observed that if they were tofeed Homers, they would be encumber