basis of historical investigation. But we think Mr. Gladstone has shown conclusively, that we are not compelled to this limitation of the historical field, and that he has materially strengthened the position of Bishop Thirlwall and Mr. Clinton, as to the possibility of extracting historical data from what Mr. Grote calls legendary Greece. Without attempting a discussion of this question, it seems to us a most unreasonable assumption, that the legendary lore of any nation is utterly destitute of historical foundation. Nothing could be more natural, than for a people to surround the actual facts of their early history with a mass of exaggeration, which in the course of time would take the form of mythical narratives. It is more reasonable to suppose, that there is a basis of fact in all mythologies, and that it is the historical truth in the first place which obtains credence, while the false additions are of gradual growth, than that a system of mythology wholly and entirely false, without any historical foundation, comes to be universally believed. And if there is this historical basis in the legends of Greece, why should it be regarded as impossible to separate the true from the false? It is an easy method to reject the whole, on account of the mythical character of a part; but this principle would lead to the rejection of a vast deal of history, of more modern date. It is in fact a needless skepticism, and is inconsistent with that bold and patient spirit of iniquiry, which expects to obtain some true results where there is any basis of fact. To say that we have no evidence that there is any thing, even approximately correct in Grecian chronology before 776 B.C.—that it is impossible to tell whether there are any real personages in the Iliad and Odyssey-that all inquiries are fruitless as to the race which inhabited Greece before the Hellenic period, is a voluntary abandonment, which which we find it difficult to understand, of a field most fertile in historical results.

When we examine the claims of the poems of Homer to be considered as valuable historical documents, we find that the Greeks so regarded them, and regarded no others in the same light. And this harmonizes most perfectly with what appears to be the intention of the poems themselves. The minute ac

curacy which is every where evident-the digressions from the story which are readily explained if we suppose them to be of historical interest, but are inexplicable on any other supposition, and the artistic blending and yet easy separation of the natural and supernatural, all lead us to a probable basis of fact. And when we bring to bear upon this question, the light which Comparative Philology, Ethnology, and other cognate studies afford, we arrive at many results upon which we can confidently rely, and in regard to which all that the historical skeptic can say, is that they do not absolutely exclude the possibility of doubt.

It makes little difference in regard to the historical value of the Iliad and Odyssey, whether we regard them as the production of one or of many authors. If any one finds the difficulties of the case diminished by the supposition of a multiplicity in one age of such extraordinary poets as Homer, he is welcome to the relief thus afforded. It is enough to say that there has been in recent German critics a great reäction on this point, from the skepticism of Wolf, and that the best English scholars maintain that the Iliad and Odyssey are the production of a single mind. The only point which is vital in this inquiry, is, whether the author (supposing that there was but one) of these poems was in a position to give a correct representation of the manners, customs, morals, and religion of the heroic age, and whether such a representation is actually contained in these poems as they have come down to us.

The evidence arising from the difficulty of forging ancient documents, is very strong as to the genuineness of the poems of Homer. The fact that in the earliest times in Greece of which we have any record, they were rehearsed in public at festivals by rhapsodists, is presumptive evidence that they were handed down without material alteration: for the errors of one rhapsodist would be sure to be corrected by the others. And since the time we know them to have been committed to writing, there has been but little danger of any serious corruption of the text. If, therefore, these poems may be considered as genuine, it only remains for us to inquire whether Homer lived in such proximity to the age which he describes, that his re

presentation of it can be relied upon. In this inquiry let it be observed that it matters very little whether we can fix upon the exact period which is here described. The question is whether Homer was sufficiently near to it, whenever it was, to be considered as a competent witness to its various phenomena. Eratosthenes places the Trojan expedition at 1192 B.C., and considers Homer as 100 years later. Aristotle regards him as 140 years later, and Mr. Clinton, whose authority on this subject is very great, adopts the opinion of Aristotle.* Mr. Gladstone thinks there is evidence of even greater proximity to the war. The absence of all allusion in the poems. to the Dorian conquest and the revolution which it produced in Greece the thousand undesigned indications that the poet is living in a state of society gradually altering but essentially unchanged from that which he describes-and his own testimony that the period from Pirithous, who had a son in the siege, to the siege itself, was equal to the period from the siege to his own day-all these, with other considerations, seem to indicate that Homer was within at least two or three generations from the Trojan war.

Now it is evident that Homer intended to give a substantially correct account of the heroic age of Greece. And his proximity to that age, not only enabled him to give a correct representation of it, but rendered it impossible for him to give any other, for his contemporaries were as near to it as himself, and would have rejected any other than a truthful picture. There is every evidence in the Iliad and Odyssey that the age described and the age of the author were in such close proximity that the one did not differ materially from the other. But however near to or remote from the heroic age, the author or authors of these poems may have been, it is evident beyond all question that such an age did exist, and that the manners, customs, morality, and religious ideas and usages here described, were actually characteristic of a period known as the heroic age of Greece, and that is all that is absolutely necessary to serve our present purpose.

*Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, p. 70.

We propose now to present some of the most striking characteristics of this age in reference to politics, morals, and religion, and then show the relation of our results to some of the great problems of universal history. In this inquiry we shall principally follow the lead of Mr. Gladstone, but shall resort, as may seem necessary, to the views of other authorities in the Homeric controversy.

There is a wide difference between Mr. Grote and Mr. Gladstone in their estimate of the polities of the heroic age. Both agree, of course, as to the constituent elements of Grecian society. The king, the council, and the agora, are clearly presented to us as the institutions of the state. Besides the chiefs, there were the people or freemen, and the slaves.

The council was an assembly of the chiefs for conference with the king; the agora was a public assembly of the king, chiefs, and people. Mr. Grote's view of the matter is, that the king was virtually supreme, and that the council and agora were merely organs by which his will was executed, and were in no sense restrictions upon his authority. The council of the chiefs, was simply for the advice and information of the king, and never for the purpose of arresting any mischievous measure. The agora is simply for discussion on the part of the chiefs before the people. No proposition is submitted to vote. There seems to be no positive function in it, and the agora, in his view, is "passive," "recipient," and presents a "repulsive view of the degradation of the mass of the people before the chiefs."

Mr. Gladstone's conception of the king, council, and agora is widely different from this, and seems to be fully sustained by an appeal to Homer. He regards the king as possessed, indeed, of great authority, but as dependent for the reverence and obedience of his subjects, upon his own personal superiority. The council of the chiefs is not only for the advice of the king, but the king is there freely criticised and resisted; while in the agora, his plans are fully discussed and sometimes overthrown. The freedom with which Agamemnon is addressed, and sometimes even reviled, not only by the con

federate kings but also by the chiefs, and the occasions on which he is actually defeated in the agora, show that there was any thing but a slavish submission to his will, either among the chiefs or the people. Nothing is more remarkable in the representation of the heroic age than the prominence and influence of public speaking. The king must have the power of persuasion, and oratory was regarded as the principal title to respect and admiration. The freedom with which public measures could be criticised, the fact that an agora might be called without the agency of Agamemnon, the publicity of every thing connected with the state, and the great regard which was had to the power of persuasion, all show the influence of public opinion. Despotism is impossible, as the whole history of the world shows, where there is perfect freedom of speech, and never did that exist in a higher degree than as it is represented to us in the magnificent orations of the Iliad. Mr. Grote says that there was no positive function in the agora, and that there was no submitting of measures to a popular vote, but it is inconceivable that these extraordinary efforts of oratory were understood to be for no practical end, and that the will of Agamemnon was, at any rate, to prevail. The very assembling of the people as a regular institution, and the varied powers of persuasion brought to bear upon them, compel us to the belief that they were to decide between opposing plans and counsels, and though it might not have been by vote, yet by some method, the import of which was well understood, they gave or withheld the public sanction to the measures proposed.

Public sentiment is so powerful in heroic Greece that it has a sort of personification in Homer. It is represented somewhat in the same light as the Chorus in the Greek tragedies, and this public sentiment finds its expression and exercises its influence upon matters of common interest in the council and the agora.

We find in the polities of the heroic age, as represented to us in the poems of Homer, a very remarkable degree of personal freedom, which is by no means the sort of freedom ob