Homer and Hector

8/13/2019 Homer and Hector

1/36

Homer and Hector

Author(s): Frederick M. CombellackReviewed work(s):Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 65, No. 3 (1944), pp. 209-243Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/291490.

Accessed: 16/09/2012 15:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

American Journal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/291490?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/291490?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/36

AMERICANJOURNAL OF PHILOLOGYVOL. LXV, 3 WHOLE No. 259

HOMER AND HECTOR.One of the most striking contributions to Homeric studiesmade by America's most distinguished Homerist, John A. Scott,is his theory that Hector was not inherited by Homer from tradi-tion but was the invention of the poet. This hypothesis was first

presented in an article in Classical Philology in 1913.1 A fewyears later Scott devoted one of his Sather lectures to a restate-ment of his views on this subject, and in 1921 this appeared asthe latter part of Chapter Seven of his Unity of Homer.2 Thereare no essential differences in the treatments, and to a largedegree even the wording is almost or quite identical. The theoryhas naturally been commented upon by various critics and hasmet with enthusiastic praise in some quarters. The late Pro-fessor Bassett, for instance, after characterizing it as " brilliant "and "convincing," spoke of it thus, ". . . Professor Scott'stheory about Hector, which is to be regarded as one of the mostuseful contributions in the way of a hypothesis based on strongevidence which this generation has made to the appreciation ofthe creative genius of Homer." 3 Dissenting voices of coursehave not been lacking, even among those who share many ofScott's views. The enthusiastic Unitarian J. T. Sheppard, forexample, in his review of The Unity of Homer 4 says, " I agree

'' Paris and Hector in Tradition and in Homer," Class. Phil., VIII(1913), pp. 160-71.2 Berkeley, 1921. In the following discussion all my page referenceswill be to this later version.

C. W1., XIV (1920-21), p. 20. M. P. Nilsson in his Homer andMycenae (London, 1933), pp. 264-5, also speaks of Scott's idea in veryfavorable terms.4 C. R., XXXVI (1922), p. 169. 209


3/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.warmly with the denunciation of the fine-spunnonsenseof criticswho attempt to make Hector a Boeotian; but I think Mr. Scotthimself goes beyond the evidence when he tries to show thatHector was invented by the author of the Iliad." But criticson both sides have largely contented themselves with merelyexpressing their approval or disapprovalof the theory, and therehas been no attempt to examine carefully the evidence whichScott has adduced in its support. This is unfortunate, becausethe theory is really of considerable importance not only for our" appreciation of the creative genius of Homer," but also for thewhole question of Homer's relationship to the pre-Homerictradition. If Homer could invent and add to the Troy story soimportant a character as Hector, then clearly he could treat thetradition with the utmost freedom, and we cannot hope to makeeven plausible guesses about the condition of the Troy story inpre-Homeric times.There has been some attempt to build up a positive case forthe pre-Homeric existence of Hector. In particular the cogentobservationsof Drerup in his review of Scott's Unity of Homer 5are worthy of careful attention:

Man beachte, dass schon die Aufnahme des Achilleus in dentroischen Sagenkreis . . . die Erfindung seines GegenspielersHektor zu bedingen scheint, da ohne ihn Achill in der troischenSage iiberhaupt keinen rechten Zweck hat; fur die Erreichungdes eigentlichen Kriegszweckes,die Zerstirung Trojas, hat er javon jeher nur eine nebensachlicheAufgabe gehabt. Die primarenElemente dieser Sage sind Agamemnon und Menelaos, Helena,Priamos und Paris; mit dem Kriegszuge gegen Troja, der nichtnotwendig primar sein muss, zieht dann die bunte Schar dergriechischen Helden in sie ein, darunter Achill; auf der Gegen-seite erscheint aber auch eine entsprechende Zahl troischerHelden, die wir uns ohne Hektor kaum denken konnen, jeden-falls nicht leichter, als die Griechen ohne Achill. Paris kannhier schon darum nicht der eigentliche Gegenspieler Achillsgewesen sein, weil dieser ja berufen sein musste, den Ruhm desgriechischen Haupthelden auf den Gipfel zu fiihren, Paris abernach der Tradition dazu ausersehen war, den Achill zu t6ten.Wenn also Paris in der Ursage der Protagonist auf troischerSeite war, so miisste er das in einer Sagenperiode vor der Ein-fiihrung des Achilleus gewesen sein; aber auch fur diese Pramissesind Scotts Beweise nicht zwingend.

5Phil. Wochenschr., XLII (1922), pp. 505-17 and 529-40. My quota-tion is from p. 536.

210


4/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.There is certainly much to be said for this view that the presenceof Achilles in the Troy story practically requires the presence ofHector.

But, after all, it is really not incumbent upon those who donot believe in Scott's theory to demonstrate conclusively thatHector is older than Homer. Onewho grants, as Scott does, thatso many of the characters in Homer are traditional may fairlybe required to offer strong and convincing proof for a theorythat one of the most important characters was invented byHomer. In a situation of this kind the burden of proof cer-tainly rests with the innovator; if it can be shown that theinnovator has made no case, it is surely not essential that hisopponents present a strong positive case on the other side, thoughI confess that I find Drerup's observationsquite sufficientin thatdirection. I am not, therefore, here concernedwith this aspect ofthe problem, but rather with demonstrating the flimsiness of thecase presented by Scott. Some few preliminary remarks on thepositive side may, however,be in order.If we turn to what must be, after all, by far ourmost importantand reliable source of evidence in Homeric studies, Homer him-self, we can only remark that Homer's technique with regard toHector will certainly suggest to many that he is just as much apart of the tradition as those characters whom Scott admitsHomer inherited from predecessors. Hector is first presented inthe most casual manner in A 242. He is introducedin exactly thesame way as Aias, Odysseus, and Idomeneus, and in much thesame way as Agamemnon and Achilles, a fact which could wellbe interpreted by an impartial reader as an indication that every-one in Homer's audience knew who he was.6 Scott himself com-ments thus on the introduction of Hector (pp. 206-7):

In the early part of the poem this hero of the Trojan forces isnot brought upon the stage nor given prominence. Long beforeCf. C M. Bowra, Tradition and Design in the Iliad (Oxford, 1930),

pp. 3-4: " The assumption that the audience know the main outlines ofthe story persists through the poem. Characters, who are later to playan integral part and whose previous action is assumed to have beenimportant, are mentioned casually as if we knew all about them. Hectoris never formally introduced. We first hear of him from Achilles, whosays that his own abstention from battle will lead to many Achaeansbeing killed by Hector (A 242), and when he does appear on the sceneit is assumed without more ado that he commands the Trojans (B 802)."

211


5/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.we see him, however, we know that he is to be the chief an-tagonist, the one whom the Greeks are most to fear. Achillesin his anger swore that the Greekswould rue his absenceon thatday when many should fall at the hands of man-slaying Hector.Also, Agamemnon called the leaders of the Greeks together forsacrifice and prayed that Zeus grant him the power of burningthat very day the halls of Priam and of bringing vanquishedHector to the dust. By the words of Achilles and the prayer ofAgamemnon the poet was able to create the impression thatHector was a known and illustrious warrior.To this I can only say that it seems to me highly artificial andfar less probable than the simple assumption that Hector wasa known and illustrious warrior; there was no need for the poetto create any such impression.It is perhaps worth recalling that there are in the Iliad anumberof references to Hector's participation in incidents whichpreceded the quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon. At E 473-4Sarpedon reminds Hector that he once said he could save thetown alone with just his brothersand brothers-in-law:

rSTrOVarep XaWv7roXtveWelev q8' firLKOVpwVoio, (ro-vyapLtpotlcr KacrLyvr7'roLt Te o(otrt.This could be a reference to a pre-Homeric Hector. Such aspeech would well fit the man implied by some of Homer'sepithets for Hector; it is, in fact, more in harmony with someof these epithets than is the Hector of the Iliad.7 In H 113-14Agamemnon tells Menelaus that Achilles himself is afraid ofHector. This is not true in the Iliad, but may have been illus-trated by some earlier incident or incidents when Achilles wasnot maddened by his desire for vengeance.8 There is a feeblehint of a pre-Homeric Hector in I 304 where Odysseus gives as

7 Monro (The Iliad, ed. D. B. Monro, 2 vols., Oxford, I, 5th ed. 1899,II, 4th ed. 1897) in his note on the passage expresses the view that OEytaTo6L roLtoUToels robs r?vAuaXovs. But Homer does not say that Hector said anythingof this sort to the allies. They may have heard it at second hand. Suchboasts and threats are quite common; cf. e. g. O 229 ff., N 220, T 83 ff.

8 Agamemnon's words do not really imply, as Monro says ad loc., thatHector was superior to Achilles, but simply that Achilles had beencautious and possibly on occasion had retreated, as the Homeric heroesin general do from time to time.

212


6/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.one reason why Achilles should come back to the fight the factthat he could win great glory, vvvyap X' "Exrop' XotLs, ecauseHector is now so confident of his powers that he would cometo close quarters. This implies that heretoforein the war Hectorhas not been so eager to meet the Greekprince. Later on in thesame book (352-5) we have a reference to a particular incidentpreceding the action of the Iliad: 9

ofpa 8' yo fler' 'AxaLoLrLvroXEJLgovOVK cOEXE'KE 'aXlXv aro TEtXeOoPpvypEVKTCv Op,aAA' ocrov es S, ataL Tre 7rvAas KCLt ryoV tKaevevEvOa rTO' oov tZfL/V, iioytu sE IfEv -Kfvyev OpxjLv.

In 0 721-3 Hector says that he has long wanted to fight theGreeks,but has been held back by the elders, a situation not por-trayed in the Iliad. I should be the last to maintain thatreferences of this type prove the existence of a pre-HomericHector, and I freely grant that there is nothing to show thatHomer did not invent them all. Scott would doubtless hold thatthey are all part of Homer's clever efforts to " create the impres-sion that Hector was a known and illustrious warrior." But it isequally true that there is nothing to show that they are notreferencesto incidents familiar to the audience from pre-Homerictradition. In any case, the important first step in this questionshould be to subject the hypothesis of Scott to a searchingexamination to determine whether or not the evidence he haspresented is strong enough to require any attempt to construct apositive defense of the orthodox view. Actually, I think it ispossible to show beyond question that Scott has given us noreason to believe that Homer invented Hector, and that thevarious points he presents can all be shown to be either invalid orirrelevant.

I ought, perhaps, to state at the outset that I am in heartysympathy with Scott's purpose in presenting his theory. Whileit is doubtless true that Scott was greatly influenced by hisfeeling that Hector is so fine a character,and by his habitual and

9I interpret the last line to refer to a specific incident, and the im-perfect, feuzpLve,s conative or inchoative, " He started," or "he tried tostand his ground there once, but he barely escaped my attack." Monrowould translate eALtufve,he used to wait." If Monro is right, there isno reference to a specific incident and the passage can be more easilyfelt to represent a mere invention of Homer.

213


7/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.irresistible desire to try to claim everything good in the Iliadand Odysseyas the independent invention of Homer, he was alsogreatly and rightly rousedby the dreamsof Diimmler and Betheabout Hector the Boeotian and the kindred nonsense of Wilamo-witz about a Hektorgedicht. But it is perfectly possible to bemore than a little sceptical about these theorizings and stillbelieve that Hector is part of the traditional Troy story whichHomer inherited from his predecessors. At least, I repeat, onemay fairly require strong evidence to support a theory whichdenies the existence of a pre-Homeric Hector. What is theevidencepresentedby Scott?First, Scott appeals, as he has profitably done on other oc-casions, to Pindar.10 Pindar, we are told, shows no knowledgeofHector except what could be obtainedfrom Homer. We can findin Homer a passage to justify and explain every Pindaricreference to Hector. Yet Pindar was no "docile follower ofHomer." He sometimes differs from Homer and sometimes addsdetails not mentioned in the Iliad. As an instance of this latterpractice Scott cites the Third Nemean, 50-52, where we areinformed that Achilles caught animals by his speed of foot. ButPindar adds no new features to Homer's portrait of Hector." The first and only poem to give a portrait of him was theIliad" (p. 223). If there are any points to this argument theymust be: a) Pindar's failure to add features to the HomericHector suggests that the Homeric portrait was the only one inexistence, and b) Pindar's addition of features to the HomericAchilles suggests that there were other portraits of Achillesfamiliar to him. Actually, of course, neither of these conclu-sions is in the least degree valid. As for the second one, it mustbe pointed out, first, that Pindar's statement about Achillescatching animals by his speed of foot can hardly be said to adda new feature to Homer's portrait of Achilles, who is in Homerrepeatedly called swift of foot, and, secondly, what Pindar doessay can just as well be due to original invention as to tradition.

10Scott also briefly considers the evidence of Hesiod. This is of somesignificance in the problem of Hector the Boeotian, but offers no helpto Scott's theory that in the pre-Homeric tradition Hector did not existand Paris was the supreme leader of the Trojans. Hesiod not only failsto mention Hector, but is also completely silent about Paris, and, in fact,all other Trojan heroes except Aeneas.

214


8/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.Anyone who believes that Homer could, with no models to workon, produce Hector out of whole cloth, should certainly feel thatit required no great powers of invention on Pindar's part tothink up this detail about catching animals after Homer'srepeated insistence on Achilles' celerity. I do not maintain thatPindar did invent it. This animal-catching may well haveappearedin pre-Homeric poetry. We simply do not know wherePindar got the idea. The other " point " contributes, if possible,even less to Scott's confident conclusion. Anyone who feels a needto explain Pindar's failure to add details to the Homeric Hectorcan easily think of many reasonsmore likely than Scott's. Maybeit is because Homer happens to tell in great detail the only partof the war in which Hector was an important figure; possibly allthe earlier treatments of Hector were likewise devoted mainly tohis last days and death; it may be that Pindar had much toadd to Homer's Hector in the extensive portions of his work nowlost; it may be that the Homeric portrait of Hector appealed toPindar and the other portraits of him did not. Pindar does notstand closer to Homer than does Aeschylus. For Scott, whowould apparently put Homer in the tenth or ninth century, itshould seem not only plausible but almost certain that by thetime of Pindar and Aeschylus Homer had acquiredso preeminenta position that the pre-Homeric poetry was little better knownthan it is to us. If Pindar contained un-Homeric details aboutHector Scott would be quick to point out that they could not betaken as proof that there was a pre-Homeric Hector, since Pindarmight easily have invented them. The absenceof such details inthe extant portion of Pindar can certainly not demonstrate oreven suggest the absence of Hector in pre-Homeric poetry.It should in fairness be stated that Scott is here mainly occu-pied with disproving the theory about a Theban Hector, and thisargument from Pindar (and Hesiod) was first set forth in thatconnection in an article in the American Journal of Philology.1lAgainst that theory the testimony of an early Theban poet canjustly be felt to have some weight and one can only regret thatit is not more extensive, but Scott concludes his discussion ofPindar with the flat statement, "The first and only poem to

11" Hector as a Theban Hero in the Light of Hesiod and Pindar,"A.J.P., XXXV (1914), pp. 309-17. (This is the first section of anarticle entitled, " Two Homeric Personages.")

215


9/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.give a portrait of him (sc. Hector) was the Iliad." Pindar'ssilence clearly offers no support whatever for this larger con-clusion that Homer invented Hector. Scott himself has ofteninsisted elsewhere on the danger and weakness of an argumentfrom silence in view of the highly fragmentary state of Greekliterature.

Scott next discusses the fact that the traditions about theTrojans are far more vague and deficient than those about theGreeks. In fact, "the Trojans are introduced or created merelythat the Greeks may have antagonists" (p. 225). Homer hasdifficulty finding " names and exploits for the Trojans "; nearlyall the Trojans have Greeknames; tradition did not give Homerthe name of Hector's wife, and so she has a Greek name, as dohis son and many of his brothers. It is hard to see what all thishas to do with Homer's invention of the character of Hector;also hard to see precisely what Scott means by tradition. In hisremarks about Andromache and elsewhere in this chapter, heoften seems almost to mean the factual record of history. Butthe distinction in point here is not that which, for example,forms the basis of the discussions in the third volume of Bethe'sHomer-Dichtung und Sage,12 between genuine " Sagestoff" onthe one hand and "rein Dichterwerk" on the other. In thisdiscussion we are concernedwith the distinction between Homerand the pre-Homeric tradition; that tradition includes not onlythe factual historical background (if there was any), the varia-tions conscious and unconscious which that history experiencedin the course of (presumably) centuries of oral tradition andwhich converted it into the "imperfect history" of Saga, butalso the variations and additions made by the free inventions ofpoets. There is a regrettable tendency for writers on Homer,both Dissectors and Unitarians, to slip into the fallacy of assum-ing that a suggestion that some detail in the Iliad or Odysseyis the product of poetical imagination is the same thing as ademonstrationthat the detail is the invention of the poet Homerand had no existence before his time. Actually, one could con-sistently hold that there was no historical basis whatever forthe Trojan story, that it was all free poetical invention, and atthe same time that Homer's debt to tradition was tremendous,

12 Die Sage vom Troischen Kriege (Leipzig and Berlin, 1927).

216


10/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.even that Homer added nothing of importance in the way ofinvented characters or incidents. There probably was an his-torical basis for the Trojan story, but by Homer's time thishistorical fact had been embroideredby the "many generationsof poets " whom Scott himself recognizes on p. 241. When wespeak of tradition with reference to Homer we mean this poeticaltradition whether or not it was ultimately inspired by historicalevents. Neither Scott nor anyone else knowsor can hope to knowwhether or not this tradition gave Homer the name of Hector'swife. Of course, if Hector did not exist in the tradition, neitherdid his wife. But if he did there is no reason why we shouldassume that he was a bachelor in the tradition and was providedwith a wife and child by Homer. The relative meagerness ofTrojan exploits and authentic Trojan names in Homer has nobearing whatever on the question of Homer's originality or hisinventions. It is simply the obvious and inevitable result of afact of which Scott himself is perfectly conscious, "Homer hadno knowledge of the Trojans except as Greekpride or patriotismpreserved it" (p. 224). The Trojan War, whether historicalfact or not, reached Homer through the many generations ofpoets whose existence Scott himself assumes. And those poetswere Greeksand may be naturally assumed to have had more orless the same attitude towards Greeks and Trojans that Homerhas. One readily grants that Hector's wife, child, and many ofhis brothers were baptized by Greeks, but that is no proof thatHomer had to invent either the characters or the names. Grantthat in the Iliad "the Trojans are introduced merely that theGreeks may have antagonists "; with whom does Scott imaginethe Greeksfought in the pre-Homeric poems of his many genera-tions of poets? Does he believe, as he seems sometimes to imply,that every one of these poets, when he composed a poem aboutsome part of the Troy story, took the trouble to invent a new setof antagonists, many of them with complicated family relation-ships? Or does he believe that the earlier poets accepted thecharacters of the tradition but that Homer alone indulged inthis passion for new inventions ?Scott's point in all this, I presume, is that the traditions aboutthe Trojans were so meager that Homer was impelled to add rich-ness to them by inventing Hector. This, of course, is simply aguess and cannot be proved or disproved. It is certainly not


11/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.enough in itself to offer any help to Scott's theory. Moreover,obvious objections suggest themselves: though one is ready toadmit that the traditions about the Trojans are less rich thanthose about the Greeks, and inevitably so, this is only relative.Inevitably, after many generations of poets had been at workon the Troy story, a considerable body of material would havebeen created about the Trojans. Some of this appears directlyor indirectly in Homer; almost certainly there was much morewhich does not appear in Homer. In particular, it seems almostperverseto assume that at this period of the story's developmentthe Trojans had only one important leader, when the Greekswere so generously endowed. Even if this happened to be thecase historically, it is inconceivable that generations of poetsshould have allowed this condition to continue. Here, as so fre-quently happens in Homeric studies, Scott has made the error ofpostponing for generations a feature of the Troy story which, ifnot historical fact, is so obvious and, one might say, necessaryan element in the plot that it must have appearedquite early inits development.I see no reason to go into Scott's point that Paris is the onlyTrojan leader with a foreign name, while Hector has a " goodGreek name." Even if we grant this as a demonstrated anduniversally accepted fact, these considerations are, like thesimilar remarks about Hector's family, of no relevance whateverto Scott's case. All they can be taken to show is that the Troystory has been handled by Greeks,and on that point there is nodispute. Possibly Scott and others may feel, too, that Paris'foreign name is an indication that he is an older character thansome of the other Trojans. On that point I have no knowledgeand no convictions. As a sample of what can be done in thisfield, however, one may take the speculations of Bethe,13which

13Die Sage vom Troischen Kriege, pp. 90 f. I might incidentally takeexception to one statement made by Scott in this paragraph. " Hector,in name, dress, character, and all, is a Greek loaned to the enemy; bythese same tokens Paris is foreign throughout." (This also occurs inthe original article, p. 162.) One not familiar with this work of Scott'smight naturally suppose that this statement followed or preceded ademonstration of these assertions. Nothing of the sort. Scott hasmerely pointed out in what immediately precedes that Paris is a foreignname, Hector a Greek one. Nothing has been said about "dress, char-acter, and all" (whatever this last may be presumed to include), andin what follows the only one of these points touched upon is that of

218


12/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.lead him to suggest that Alexander was the usual name of thishero and that Paris was given to him later to stigmatize himas a barbarian; all this to have happened under the influence ofthe nationalistic feeling aroused among the Ionians by theLydian Wars in the seventh century.Scott then presents (pp. 226 ff.) a rather lengthy considerationof Paris and Hector in tradition and in Homer in an effort todemonstrate that " Paris was the traditional leader and championof the Trojans, but for moral reasons could not be made theprotagonist in the poem. The poet therefore degraded him andcreated a hero with sufficient nobility of character to win sym-pathy for his cause. Hector, as he appears in Homer, is thecreation of the poet who conceived the idea of the Iliad; withoutHomer there would have been no traditions of Hector."

First, I must remark that this phrase, "as he appears inHomer" (which is found also in the original journal article),looks like an effort to provide a way of escape. If Scott wantsto maintain that Homer's portrayal of the character of Hectoris his own, I should be the last to-argue the matter. But that isnot the position he has taken elsewhere in this chapter and it isnot even the position he takes in the other half of this sentence.In his discussion of Paris in the tradition and in Homer, Scottturns first to the Epic Cycle and finds that in the Cypria Parisis the leading actor. This is a most doubtful statement, thoughit is common in discussions of the Cypria. The Cypria was apoem in eleven books; Proclus' summary extends to only seventy-seven lines in Allen's Oxford edition. In this summary neitherParis nor any action of Paris is mentioned after line twenty. Inother words, to judge by this summary, the evidence on whichScott based his statement, Paris played a part in about one-fourth of the poem, and for three-fourths of it was not importantenough to be mentioned a single time in Proclus' summary.14character; and even here Scott does not maintain that there is anythingpeculiarly Greek about Hector's character or peculiarly un-Greek aboutParis' (which, of course, would be a hard position to hold, in view ofAlcibiades).14 There is an even more impressive absence of Paris from most of thesummary of these events in the Epitome of Apollodorus. In Frazer'sLoeb Library edition of Apollodorus (London and New York, 1921) theportion roughly corresponding to Proclus' summary of the Cypriaoccupies some 245 lines (pp. 170-204). Neither Paris nor any action ofParis is mentioned after line 28.

219


13/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.Qualifying Scott's statement to make it read, "In the earlypart of the Cypria Paris is the leading actor," not only can oneaccept it, one can go further and point out that it is impossibleto see how this could be otherwise. The early part of the Cypriawas devoted to an account of the beginnings of the Trojan War.From all the evidence we have, whether derived from pre-Homeric, Homeric, or post-Homeric sources, it is clear that inthis part of the Troy story Paris was the main character. Anywriter dealing with this portion of the story would have to makehim the leading Trojan, and no one should feel any surprise thatParis was the main character in the early part of the Cypria.This cannot be said to add anything to Scott's attempted proofthat "Paris was the traditional leader and champion of theTrojans" in the Troy story as a whole.Scott then goes on to say (p. 227), " The deeds of no otherTrojan find any place in the story of the Cypria." But we dis-cover immediately that this is not so. Scott himself tells us thatour summary of the Cypria contains the information that amongthe contents of the poem there was an account of the death ofProtesilaus at the hands of Hector. It is with deep regret thatwe then see Scott following the same course he has so often andso justly criticized in the studies of the Dissectors. This accountinvolving Hector, Scott tells us, "is not an independent tradi-tion, but is founded on the Iliad and in plain violation ofHomer." With what weary familiarity do we read that argu-ment. In other words, where the evidence at our disposal isconsistent with our theory we shall accept it as good evidence;where it contradicts our theory we shall reject it as bad. This isa method of procedure which has been all too common inHomeric studies. Scott himself has done much to show that itsmost skilful practitioners have conclusively demonstrated thatby the use of it one can prove anything. Even if one does notgo beyond Scott's own account of the Cypria, therefore, one seeshis argument self-convicted. But if one goes to Proclus' sum-mary itself one realizes that, even apart from the troublesomeintroduction of Hector, Scott's statement that the deeds of noother Trojan find any place in the story of the Cypria is simplynot in accord with the facts. Other Trojans are mentioned inthe summary and the episodes involving them may, for all weknow, have been quite extensive. Before Paris leaves Troy

220


14/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.Helenus prophesies to him about the future; Aphrodite bids herson Aeneas sail with Paris; if he did not go the scene must havebeen prolonged to contain his refusal; if he did, he must haveplayed some part in the events of the journey;15 Cassandraalsoprophesies; Hector kills Protesilaus; Aeneas' cattle are drivenoff by Achilles, and, although Proclus does not say whether ornot Aeneas appeared in the episode, Homer's account of thisevent in Y 89 ff. makes it all but certain that he did; Troilus iskilled by Achilles; Lycaon is taken by Patroclus to Lemnos andsold for ransom. And we must never forget that we do not havethe eleven books of the Cypriabut only a prose summary of someseventy to eighty lines. Doubtless in the poem itself otherTrojans were mentioned, the charactersnamed aboveappearedorwere at least mentioned many more times, and some of theepisodes indicated by these references of Proclus may well havebeen of considerablelength and importance. Yet, in the face ofall this, Scott can say in his eagerness to prove the great impor-tance of Paris, "The deeds of no other Trojan find any place inthe story of the Cypria." Of course, I do not maintain that theCypria is an unerring witness of the pre-Homeric tradition. Itis Scott who is using the Cypria for his case. My purpose here issimply to indicate that if we propose to use Proclus' summariesas evidence we must take them as we find them; we shall accom-plish nothing by omissions and mis-statements or by an ingeniousselective process whereby we accept as old and authentic what isconvenient for our purpose and reject as late whatever isembarrassing.Scott's treatment of the other Cyclic poems in which we mightexpect Paris is briefer but similar. He tells us that no Trojanother than Paris is named in Proclus' summary of the Aethiopisas "sharing in the events of this poem." This is correct butadds nothing to Scott's case, since in view of the subject matterof the Aethiopis it would be surprising if any other Trojan werevery important in the action, Hector being now dead. But if wehad the poem itself, I should be most surprised if other Trojansdid not appear in minor roles and episodes. Our summary isonly about twenty-five lines long. According to Scott only Paris

15 On this cf. Schol. Lip. on N 460: one reason why Priam did notlike Aeneas was O'Ttavvjp7aoev 'AXedvaSpcets aplra/yrvTrs 'EXeXrs. Schol.T says it was because Aeneas' mother infatuated Paris.

221


15/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.and Helenus among the Trojans are mentioned as having a partin the Little Iliad. This is not so. The poem also had an accountof the marriage of Helen and Deiphobus.

Why, after his inaccurate and misleading account of theTrojans in the Epic Cycle, Scott then adds to his inaccuracy byflatly stating, " Thus we find that in the first three poems of theCycle, leaving the Iliad out of account, Paris is the only Trojanwhose acts are of sufficient importance to receive mention in thesummary by Proclus," I do not know. One can only say inanswer that this is simply not a correct statement of the facts,and anyone who will take the trouble to read Proclus for himselfwill see that it is not. Morethan half a dozen other Trojans arementioned in Proclus' summaries of the Cypria, Aethiopis, andLittle Iliad, and since his summariesare so brief we are certainlyjustified in assuming that only the important characters andepisodes are mentioned in them. Clearly, there is no proof herethat Paris was the traditional leader of the Trojans. An im-partial examination of Proclus shows only what one wouldnaturally expect; Paris was one of the most important leaders,and in certain portions of the Troy story the leading character.The fact that Paris appears to overshadow even Hector inProclus' account of the Cypria,Aethiopis, and Little Iliad cannotbe taken to prove that in the tradition of the Trojan War as awhole Paris completely overshadowedHector or that Hector didnot exist in that tradition and had to be invented by Homer.Paris is naturally more important in the Aethiopis and LittleIliad because he is still alive and Hector is dead. As for theCypria,what would one logically expect their relative importancein that poem to be if one had never heard of the idea that Homerinvented Hector and that in the earlier tradition Paris held aposition of unique preiminence? The Cypria told of 1) theorigins of the Trojan War, 2) the mustering of the Greekarmy,its long preliminary wanderings, and its final arrival at Troy,3) some events of the years of the war preceding Achilles'temporary withdrawal from the action. Obviously in the firstof these sections, which was devoted almost entirely to the judg-ment of the goddesses and the rape of Helen and the eventsleading to those two climaxes, one naturally expects Paris to bethe main character. He almost certainly was the main characterin all the pre-Homericpoems which dealt with this portion of the

222


16/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.Troy story, and Proclus' summary shows that he was the maincharacterin this portion of the Cypria. But, as we should expect,he does not stand alone; even in this portion of Proclus' summaryother Trojans-Helenus, Aeneas, Cassandra-are also intro-duced, and there were certainly still others, named or nameless,who were mentioned or appearedfor a short time in minor roles.Proclus' summary averages only seven lines for each book of theCypria. We should not expect Paris, or Hector, or any otherTrojan to play any role in the second part of the poem since itis devoted entirely to the Greeks,and neither Paris nor any otherTrojan does appear in Proclus' summary, though here againdoubtless he and many other Trojans were named in the poemitself; e. g. Paris must have been named in Iris' report to Mene-laus about what had happened in Sparta. In the third portion,devoted to some of the events of the first nine years of the war,we might well expect that Paris would play a part occasionally,though we should expect his role to be far less important than inthe first portion, since we have no reason to believe that he ispreeminently a warrior, and this part of the poem dealt withfighting in the main, much of it, moreover, in the form ofexpeditions by the Greeks against towns in the neighborhoodrather than conflicts with the Trojans themselves. Also, wemight well expect some episode or episodes involving Hector.Actually, in Proclus' summary of this section of the poem thereis one episode in which Hector appears. Paris, however, is noteven mentioned. I find this last fact somewhat surprising: Ishould imagine that to Scott, who looks to the Cypriafor supportfor his belief that in the pre-Homeric tradition Paris was theleader of the Trojans, overshadowing all others and with noHector for a rival, the absence of Paris in this portion of thepoem would be amazing to the point of incredibility. I thinkit highly likely that Paris did appear occasionally in this portionof the Cypria, but always in such a minor role that Proclus didnot introduce him into his summary.The role of Paris in the Cycle is, I submit, just what weshould expect it to be if he was one of the important Trojanleaders. The fact that Hector does not play a larger role inthe last portion of the Cypria might at first sight seem sur-prising. A moment's consideration will suggest, however, thatthere is really no reason why we should expect him to have a

223


17/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.role so important here that he should be frequently mentionedin so brief a summary as that of Proclus. We must keep con-stantly in mind the nature of the warfare which occupied thesefirst nine years af+erthe Greeks arrived at Troy. From all theevidence we have it is apparent that the course of the war wasthought to be somewhatas follows: the Trojans made an effort toprevent the Greeks from landing, but were not successful, andsoon withdrew to the protection of their walls. The Greekswerequite conscious of their inability to take so strong a position bystorm and settled down to wait for some event which would movethe Trojans to come out and fight. While waiting they did whatdamage they could to the Trojans by raids on the surroundingcountry. There were also occasional skirmishes with small con-tingents of Trojans and tieir allies, and individuals were nowand then captured or killed. At some stage at least one attemptwas made to arbitrate the dispute, but no settlement could beagreed upon. This is the type of warfare implied or referred toin the Iliad and pictured in our summary of the Cypria, andthis was doubtless the type of warfare portrayed by Homer'spredecessors and contemporaries who happened to devote theirpoetical efforts to this part of the Trojan story. Achilles' quarrelwith Agamemnon and his decision to withdraw himself and hismen from the combat was, of course, the event which caused theTrojans to come out from their walls and fight in the plain,thereby changing the whole course of the war and bringing it to aclimax. We see at once that this warfare of the first nine yearswas of such a sort that it would be most unlikely that any Trojangeneral would participate in a series of important military ex-ploits-exploits, let us say, of sufficient importance to entitlethem to a place in Proclus' scanty summary of the Cypria. TheTrojans are shut up within their walls, and by the very nature ofthe conflict they and their leaders are forced into comparativeinactivity, while the Greeks devote their main energies to thesurroundingtowns. Undoubtedly in the Cypria, as in the poemsof Homer's predecessorsand contemporaries dealing with thesenine years, Trojan leaders were often mentioned and incidentswere describedin which they participated. There may well havebeen some poems dealing with a small portion of these nineyears and portraying some Trojan leaders as very importantcharacters,but in any account of these nine years as a whole we

224


18/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.should naturally and normally expect any Trojan leader toappear only occasionally and in a role of comparatively minorimportance. If in Proclus' summary of the Cypria's account ofthese nine years Hector is mentioned only once, this cannot betaken as evidence that in the pre-Homeric tradition of the TrojanWar as a whole Hector was non-existent or even that he was aminor character; Paris, remember,is not mentioned in this partof Proclus at all, and Scott himself,not only grants that Paris hasa place in the pre-Homeric tradition but maintains he had aplace of unique preeminence. If we had the Cypria itself weshould doubtless find Paris and Hector frequently mentioned andfrom time to time participating in such events as the nature ofthe war allowed. But these references and these events werenot of sufficientimportance to be ind'cated in a brief summary.What little evidence there is in the Cycle, if read aright andread as a whole, so far from indicating the supreme importanceof Paris and the non-existence of Hector in the pre-Homerictradition, actually suggests that the more orthodox view iscorrect-Paris is more important than Hector in the origins ofthe war (and, of course, in the brief interval between Hector'sdeath and his own), but after the fighting has properly begunHector, as long as he is alive, is more important than Paris. Somuch, then, for the Epic Cycle, which, even if it existed in itsentirety instead of in brief prose summaries, would still be post-Homeric and by no means the same thing as the pre-Homerictradition.

Next we turn to Scott's view about Paris in the Iliad. ForScott "the character of Paris in the Iliad involves constantcontradictions" (p. 227). "The first great contradiction" isthat a scoundrel like Paris is introduced as " Alexander the god-like" and is elsewhere called by such complimentary epithets as" divine " and "royal." Because the scholiast on M 93 tries toexplain the name Alexander by saying it was given him becausehe defended his country when it was attacked, Scott feels this isevidence that the name and the epithets are "in complete har-mony with pre-Homeric tradition." Quite apart from the factthat in Homer Paris fights in defense of his country, one needonly remark on this appeal to the scholia that it would probablybe difficult to find a weaker reed to support any theory than the

2

225


19/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.scholiasts' fancies connected with etymologies.16 Scott's pointabout the epithets has, moreover,lost whatever value it may oncehave possessed since the publication of Parry's studies on thetraditional epithet in Homer. Perhaps Scott himself would nowabandon it. Even without Parry's work many would find it no"great contradiction" that the epithets divine, godlike, androyal should be applied to a man who is in Homer himself agreat prince, and a handsome one at that. But apart from thissubjective reason, we can be well content, after Parry's work, toacknowledgethat Paris is called by these complimentary nameslargely for metrical reasons which have nothing to do either withhis moral character or his importance in the pre-Homeric tradi-tion. If anyone desires illustration of this truth and the futilityof Scott's argument, he need only look at the two persons whoare perhapsthe most unsavoury charactersmentioned in Homer,Aegisthus and Anteia. Does Scott believe that because Homercalls Aegisthus " blameless" (aJpzuvw),this is valid evidence thatin pre-Homeric tradition Aegisthus was a paragon of virtue?And would he have us believe that " divine" or " noble" Anteia(8F "AvrTLa)was as chaste as Penelope until Homer made her awanton ?" The second contradiction" is that a Greek, with his habitof connecting xaXo"and ayao'ds should have made Paris both acoward and handsome. Some may feel a certain peculiarityabout this, though it can hardly be felt to be important, andcertainly cannot be said to add to Scott's case. If one feels thatthere is a strange, un-Greek contradiction present in Homer'sportrait of Paris, then one must simply recognizethat a Greekdidportray such a contradictory character. If one Greek poet did,other Greek poets could, and we have no evidence that Homerwas the first to do so. But quite apart from this, the fact of thematter is that, as Scott himself says in his very next paragraph,

16 This same scholium which contains the explanation of the nameAlexander also has a pleasant explanation of the name Paris (Schol. Aon M 93): IIdptv Kart& yaa7rpis eXovaca 'EcdK637S6vapMe6edaaro7t reCKe

qaXbv U0 or iraaa Kar?eTp\'XOf 4' 7Tr6oXk. 7TO Oi Texe'v oUIe , ove^/l rlV Cidvrewvler?T0r, dXX'& yvW&jLaOeevVTr6 ToU eVpi6VroS eTpaCq70 PO3VKO\OV, 8s apKrov avr6'yaXa 7rtLcXofvaav reaoca'ievos dveOpeev. eK\787 ovy HIapLS, oSVX&S rtYeSs QaaLv,0r el' T'rpa e'rpdb0i, ad\' orn rObv pov rapjX\ev. Also, with only verbalvariations, in Schol. B. See, too, Bassett, "Paris-Alexander," C. W.,XIV (1920), p. 19.

226


20/36

HOMER AND HECTOR."'Paris is no coward in Homer and no weakling" (p. 229).On occasion (A 504, N 766) the Paris of Homer can fight andfight well. It is true that he has an off day when he meetsMenelaus in r, but this is consistent with his erratic nature.He is completely lacking in Hector's iron steadfastness of pur-pose and is firmly convinced that there are other things farmore worth his time and attention than warfare. His beauty,of course, is an absolutely necessary trait; he is the favorite ofBeauty's goddess, and must be personable enough to tempt Helen.One other suggestion might be made with regard to this pointof Scott's. If a Greek would have been impressed by this con-tradiction in the portrait of Paris, surely Homer as a Greek musthave been conscious of it. According to Scott, " Homer had areal difficultyin representingthe handsomefigure of Paris in theguise of a poltroon," and it required "efforts " on the part of thepoet " to paint him as a mean and timorous warrior" (pp. 228and 229). Then why did Homer go out of his way to emphasizethat Paris was handsome? If he felt he could hardly call himugly in view of his earlier history, surely he could have avoidedall these difficulties and efforts by simply saying nothing aboutParis' physical appearance. One would imagine, however, thata poet who could deal with the tradition as freely as Scott main-tains Homer did might well have made Paris look like Thersitesif he so chose. Incidentally, anyone who takes this point ofScott's seriously should notice that the handsomest man in theGreek army after Achilles amounted to nothing as a warrior:

NtpEl', os KaAXXticro avyp vro 'IXLov XW0eTrv a',.Av AavaCv iuer' ad,v'pova rl1AXetwvaa.XX'aAaraSvos EYlv, ravpog 8c ol 7TETrroAao' (B 673-5).

Scott next maintains that there is a contradiction in the factthat after losing so disgracefully to Menelaus in r Paris thatevening is able to block the proposal of Antenor that Helen berestored to Menelaus. If there is any difficulty here, it hasnothing to do with the pre-Homeric importance of Paris, but isjust a defect in Homer's handling of the story. Once the treatyof r has been made, once the duel has been fought and lost byParis, once it has been proposed that Helen be given back, thenParis' opposition and success are alike inevitable. Obviously noone but Paris can be expected to rise in the meeting and oppose

227


21/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.Antenor's suggestion, and obviously the suggestion cannot be car-ried out, because, as everyone knew, Helen was not given back.One may feel that Homer was faced with a dilemma; either hehad to introduce a scene of the sort he did use, in which case hehad to portray Paris' action and success as he did, or he couldsimply omit any reference to an effort on the part of the Trojansto live up to the treaty so solemnly made in r. It is interestingto speculate on what the Dissectors would have made of thissolution of the dilemma. Few readers, if any, will feel thatHomer chose the wrong course. It is perhaps worth noting thathe separates Paris' defeat in r from his success in H by morethan 2300 lines of busy action and brilliant poetry.There would scarcely be need to mention Scott's next pointwere it not that his statement of it is misleading. "It is alsoto be noted that, though the other married sons of Priam livedin the same palace with their father (Z 242), Paris had a palaceall his own " (p. 229).17 This definitely implies, though perhapsit just avoids saying explicitly, that Paris was the only son whohad a house of his own and that Hector, one of "the othermarried sons," lived in Priam's palace; an observation whichmight be felt to contribute somewhatto the impression Scott hasbeen trying to produce,that we can still see in Homer reflectionsof a time when Paris was the all-important son and Hector didnot exist. Unfortunately, Homer refuses to give any support tothis notion about the palaces. A few lines farther on in thissame Sixth Book he describes for us Paris' beautiful home andthen tells us that it was near Priam's and Hector's, making itclear that Hector, like his brother and his father, had a home ofhis own. In short, Homer's evidence about the houses merelyindicates that Paris and Hector were Priam's most importantsons. This, I think, no one denies. They are so in Homer anddoubtless they were so always. Of course, I do not mean to

17 Cf. the original article in Class. Phil., VIII (1913), p. 164: "It ismost significant that while Priam's other married sons and daughterslived in the same palace with their father (Z 242 ff.), Paris had a palaceall his own. The description of this palace (Z 313 if.) shows that it wasof unusual beauty." Of course it was beautiful; Helen lived there. Itis interesting that, although in the later version this observation isdemoted from something which is "most significant" to somethingwhich is merely " also to be noted," the same misleading phraseology isretained.

228


22/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.imply that Homer's remarks about the palaces prove that Hectorwas important in the pre-Homeric tradition. If Homer couldinvent Hector and provide him with a wife and child, he couldcertainly have providedhim with a home of his own. But neitherdo Homer's words offer any support to the view that Hector didnot exist in the pre-Homeric tradition.18In support of his statement that Paris' "heroic proportionsshow through, despite the efforts of the poet to paint him as amean and timorous warrior" (p. 229), Scott cites the influenceof Paris in the assembly we have just discussed and also M 93,N490, 766, and A 504. To me all these passages show isthat Paris was one of the main Trojan leaders. But if anyonewishes to argue that in some or all of the pre-Homeric Troypoetry Paris was portrayed in a more favorable light than heoften is in Homer, these passages are admittedly consistent withthat view. Positive evidence to controvert that view is as com-pletely lacking as any evidence to support it.Scott finds it odd that " Paris was the only Trojan to wound aGreek of the first rank who was not himself slain" (p. 229).This would be felt as a difficulty only by those who forget orfail to realize the importance of keeping constantly in mind thefact that Homer happened to tell only a part of the Troy story.That Paris could kill or wound several Greeks without beinghimself killed in the Iliad is of no significance whatever, andconfers upon him no peculiar importance. Homer and all hisaudience knew all the time that Paris was doomed. It is theessence of Scott's own case that Paris is a traditional character.Does he believe that in the tradition Paris was not killed atTroy? Or that in the tradition he did die, but that Homer'saudience did not have a knowledgeof the tradition ? In this detailas in many others it makes no difference in Homer's techniquewhether an event is to be narrated in the Iliad or is to occur laterin the story. Paris, Hector, Sarpedon, Pandarus, and otherscan be represented as doing considerable damage to the Greeks,because everyone knows that this damage will be avenged in theend. Aeneas, on the other hand, must play a less successful role,because everyone knows that he is destined to escape from the

180 517 suggests that Deiphobus also had a house of his own. Butit may be, as has been suggested, that he inherited Paris' house as wellas his wife.

229


23/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.war. That Homer does not happen to say specifically that Parisis to be killed is accidental and not significant. His death wasalmost certainly a part of the tradition, and is, moreover, defi-nitely implied by Homer in lines which tell us that Troy is tofall, and Priam and Priam's people. There is no evidence to myknowledge that there was ever a tradition that Paris survived thewar. Also, 0 517 f. should be clear enough evidence for anyUnitarian that Homer did not conceive of Paris as havingsurvivedthe war:

avTap 'OocT(rYa 7rpOTt 8&,LaTa L^.'t0otOLOiLtevaLt, 7)jiVr"Apra, (mv avnGtw MeveAJ.

If Menelaus and Odysseus are not going to Deiphobus' house toget Helen, why is this event important enough to be mentioned?And why is Helen with Deiphobus unless Paris is dead ? Deipho-bus is also with Helen in 8 276.1

Scott's final point about Paris is a negative one, and, again,I mention it only for the sake of completeness, since it is notintended to add anything to Scott's case, but merely to anticipatea possible objection. Scott seems to feel that an impartial listenermay object that if Paris was so important in the tradition it isodd that he is an archer, when all the other leaders of the firstrank in Homer fight with spears and swords. Scott tries toanticipate this objection by simply stating that being an archerwas no disgrace in Homer's time; that a people who had tradi-tions about the bows of Teucer, Philoctetes, Heracles, and Odys-seus "'could not have considered skill in archery a source ofinfamy" (p. 230). But here Scott is grossly overstating whatan opponent of his theory might reasonably be expected to main-tain. There is no need to argue that in Homer's time being anarcher was a source of infamy. It is merely necessary to state thefact that in Homer leaders of the first rank, Greeks, Trojans,and allies, regularly fight with spear and sword; at best thebow seems to be a second-rate weapon. It cannot be denied thatif Paris had in the tradition the position of unique preeminencewhich Scott assumes, we might well expect that in Homer hewould be equipped like a leader of the first rank instead of beinggenerally portrayed with a second-rate weapon. But I feel no

19 For the view that Homer knows nothing of this marriage of Helenand Deiphobus see, e. g., F. Blass, Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee(Halle, 1904), p. 73.

230


24/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.concern about Paris being portrayed as an archer. The mostwhich one could extract from this fact is that Paris is an oldtraditional characterdating from a time when the bow was morewidely used and more highly regarded, and that he is not theinvention of Homer; that point is not in dispute. I shouldimagine Paris continued as an archer in the epic because of thetradition about the manner of Achilles' death, the Greek bardsand their audiences preferring that the peerless Achilles not bekilled in hand to hand conflict with Paris.After this treatment of Paris in tradition (i. e. in the EpicCycle) and in Homer, Scott proceedsto his discussion of Hector.First, he assures us that "Hector had no place in the pre-Homeric tradition as given in the Cypria" (p. 230). Of course,as we have already had occasion to observe, Hector does appearin the Cypria and kills Protesilaus, but at this point for Scottthe Cypria strangely ceases to represent pre-Homeric traditionand is merely presenting post-Homeric invention. Homer (B701) simply says that a Dardanian man killed Protesilaus. Scottbelieves that the author of the Cypria attributed this deed toHector because he felt that Hector ought to have something todo during this part of the war and there was nothing about himin the tradition.20 This sort of theorizing cannot, of course, be

20 Erich Bethe, far more practiced than Scott in this selective use ofevidence, has another explanation for the difference between Proclus'account of the Cypria and B 701. He simply and roundly asserts, " Hier[B 7011 ist ein tberwinder noch unbenannt, so wird er auch in denKyprien wohl namenlos gewesen sein" (Die Sage vom Troischen Kriege,p. 30). This notion that Proclus is not here really reporting the con-tents of the Cypria correctly would be just as favorable to Scott'sargument and may seem to some a little less improbable. But Scottis not likely to accept anything from Bethe. In connection with thisDardanian man it might be noted that some who do not share Scott'sview that Hector is a special favorite of Homer's, but who believe on thecontrary that Homer as a Greek is prejudiced against this Trojan hero,point to Homer's account of the death of Patroclus as an illustration ofthis prejudice. Hector is cruelly robbed of the glory of killing Patroclusby this jealous Greek poet who first has Patroclus badly wounded byour old friend a Dardanian man, who is later identified as Euphorbus.Cf. Cauer, Grundfragen der Homerkritik (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1921), p.677. Obviously, this narrow-minded patriot who used the Dardanianman here is just the sort to rob Hector in the same way of the gloryof killing Protesilaus Certainly an " evident and unmistakable " effortto change the tradition

231


25/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.disproved. A reader either finds the guess attractive or not, andthat is an end of it. The aspect of Scott's guess which disturbsme is that this author of the Cypria seems here to bear an un-mistakable resemblanceto the many diaskeuasts and interpolatorsinvented so readily by the Dissectors. Like them he is not onlyunscrupulousin dealing with tradition, but unskilful to the pointof folly. In this instance he clumsily and perversely chooses asan episode for Hector one in which he can be controverted byany readerof Homer. Scott speaksof him as " quietly removingthe Homeric ' Dardanian man' and substituting Hector." I canthink of no adverb less appropriate for this procedure than"quietly "; it positively shrieks for attention. Just as the Dis-sectors find always such obvious evidence that their Bearbeiter orinterpolator has been at work, so Scott here finds the feebleattempt at interpolation, shall we say, on the part of the authorof the Cypria " evident and unmistakable." It is rather amusingthat along with adopting the procedure of the Dissectors Scotthere adopts their vocabulary; this sounds almost like a transla-tion from Wilamowitz, Bethe, or Robert. If the author of theCypria was so unscrupulous in dealing with the tradition and soclumsy an artist, then he is of no value as evidence for the pre-Homeric tradition. If we reject him, then we simply do notknow whether or not in the pre-Homeric tradition Hector killedProtesilaus. It seems unlikely that so striking an episode shouldhave been treated in poetry with one of the two main actorsanonymous. Why Homer gave him no name we can never hope toknow. Here, as often, there is the possibility that there was noneed to name him, becauseeveryoneknew who he was. Possiblythe tradition was confused on this point and Homer did notchoose to decide.21

Scott next turns to the epithets used of Hector in the Iliad.He remarksas a " matter of common observation" (p. 231) thatsome of the charactersin the Iliad have epithets which do not fittheir performances in that poem. " Priam, who does notand

could not wield a spear, is none the less 'Priam of good ashenspear,' and, though withdrawn from planning, is still 'valiant in

21 One who is curious about the various versions of the death of Prote-silaus may consult the note on pp. 198-9 of the second volume ofFrazer's Loeb Library edition of Apollodorus (London and New York,1921).

232


26/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.council.' Achilles, whether he be standing or seated, is ' swift-footed' or 'fleet of foot,' yet on the one occasion when he hasthe opportunity to show his fleetness of foot he was unable toovertake Hector." The fact that these epithets do not fit showsthat the characters in question are traditional and not inventedby Homer; the epithets have their explanation elsewhere. "IfHector be an old and traditional hero he should bring into thepoem with him some traces of his earlier existence" (p. 232).But every epithet used of Hector can be explained from theevents of the Iliad.22

Before considering whether or not this observation offers anysupport to Scott's case, let us for a moment examine its truth.I suspect that with the exercise of considerable ingenuity onecould make a fair case for the position that the statement ofScott, " The Iliad furnishes a full explanation for every attributegiven to Hector by Homer" (p. 232), is in accordance withthe facts. But it would require ingenuity and would probablynot convince everyone. Moreover, in putting his case in thisway Scott has chosen his words very cleverly. But if our pointis the fitness of the epithets, is it really quite enough to say thatthe Iliad furnishes a full explanation for every attribute givento Hector? If this is all we ask, then we can hardly say, asScott does, that the epithets used of Priam or Achilles do not fitthem. It is true that Priam does not use his good ashen spear inthe Iliad but his own allusions to his past days clearly explainthis attribute, and his part in the arrangements for the duel inr and his prominence in the council in H make it clear thatPriam is still regarded as a leading counsellor. Even Achilles'epithets referring to his speed of foot could in a pinch be saidto be explained by his pursuit of the flying Trojans in cQ,andhis pursuit of Hector in X, even though he does not catch Hectorby his own efforts. It would at least be just as easy to find anexplanation in the Iliad for these epithets used of Priam and

22 Scott does not list these epithets in his book, but they are given onp. 166 of his article (Class. Phil., VIII [1913]). They are as follows:dv8pooo6vos, KopvatoL6Xo, o[os, /juyas,


27/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.Achilles as for some of those used of Hector. I feel that Scottand others are perfectly correct, however, in holding that theseepithets do not really fit the Priam and Achilles of the Iliad.Even though one might maintain that the Iliad furnishes anexplanation for them, the fact remains that they emphasizequalities which are not particularly characteristic of these indi-viduals as portrayed by Homer. And even if we accept Scott'sstatement that all the epithets used of Hector are explained byHomer's portrayal of him in the Iliad, can we justly say thatthese epithets really fit the Hector of the Iliad ? Is it not rathertrue that in Hector's case also the epithets tend generally toemphasize qualities not particularly characteristic of the Hectorof Homer? Is not this especially true of that Hector as Scottinterprets him, a man remarkable primarily for "human andmoral excellencies" but "secondary as a soldier"? Surely itwould be difficult to find a less suitable epithet for Scott's Hectorthan " man-slayer," yet it is precisely this epithet by whichHomer chooses to characterize Hector the first time he is men-tioned in the Iliad. As a matter of fact, there is excellent evi-dence that Scott himself realizes how inappropriate this epithetis. In an article devoted to an attack on van Leeuwen's theorythat the Iliad really describes a " campaign embracing a singlesummer," 23 Scott quotes some passages which refer to Hector's"pre-Iliadic" career (H 114 if., I 304, 351 ff.), and remarks onthe last passage, "The fact that Achilles speaks of Hector as'the man slaying,' exactly as he did in A 242, shows that thistitle or reputation must have been won in battles fought beforethe quarreldescribedin the first part of the Iliad." These words,written when Scott was not intent upon proving his theory abouta Hector invented by Homer, not only contradict his whole pointabout Hector's epithets, but they turn the point against him andcome very close to contradicting his whole theory about Homer'sinvention of Hector. It is certainly surprising to find them inan article appearing in the same volume of Classical Philologyas that in which Scott first put forth his theory about Hector,and only six months later. Scott might perhaps maintain thatHomer not only invented Hector but also invented this pre-Iliadic backgroundto justify his epithets. This defense might

28" The Assumed Duration of the War of the Iliad," Class. Phil., VII(1913), pp. 445-56. My quotation is from p. 449.

234


28/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.be thought to save Scott's main theory as far as this point isconcerned, but if we can use this method to explain one ofHector's epithets which does not fit, we can certainly use it toexplain Priam of the good ashen spear, and Scott's whole pointabout the epithets is thus made useless and irrelevant.Whether or not one feels that the Homeric epithets appliedto Hector fit Homer's portrayal of him in the Iliad will to someextent depend on one's own interpretation of Hector's character.We can say, however, that if all we knew about Hector was,1) this list of epithets used of him in the Iliad, and 2) the factthat these epithets were fully explained in the poem, we shouldinevitably conceive of a Hector about as different as possible fromthe Hector which Scott finds in the Iliad. For Scott "theevents of the Iliad give no warrant for assigning him a high placeas a soldier . . . it is only as a man, a son, and a father thatHector really wins respect" (pp. 233 and 234). When we ex-amine the epithets listed by Scott, however, we find that morethan half of them have to do with ability in war. Hector isremarkable for his bronze helmet, or his flashing helmet (thisepithet is elsewhere applied only to Ares, the god of war) ; he isthe peer of swift Ares, or equal to Ares the bane of men, amighty deviser of rout, good at the war cry, the slayer of men,the bold charioteer, and the rest. On the other hand, in Scott'slist of twenty-seven epithets used of Hector there are only twowhich designate or even hint at any of those peculiar Hectoreanqualities which Scott stresses and admires so much. Thesetwenty-seven epithets are applied to Hector more than 175 times;Kopv0aLtoO5 alone is used of him nearly forty times, even " dog "is used three times, but each of the two epithets so suitable forScott's Hector occurs only once. And these two lose much oftheir significance for Scott's purpose when we observe that theydo not occur in narrative portions of the poem and are not usedincidentally by speakers, but are used as terms of address byHelen and Hecabe. Moreover,they are found in laments utteredat Hector's funeral, a time when even the worst of men mightreceive a few kind epithets. These two epithets applied toHector by these two characters under these circumstances canhardly be taken to be any better evidence of Hector's real char-acter or of Homer's conception of that character than the word"dog" applied to him by foemen in the heat of battle. It is

235


29/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.at least strange that if IHomnernvented Hector and so had com-plete freedom in the choice of epithets he might employ, heshould have consistently used so many epithets stressing whatScott considers to be Hector's weak points, and should have soconsistently avoided epithets to emphasize those qualities Scottfeels are his great ones. My own feeling is that if the epithetsIHomeruses of Hector have any bearing on this problem, theystrongly suggest that Hector is a character taken over from thetradition. My inference from the epithets used of Hector in theIliad is that in the tradition Hector was a far more savage char-acter, far more of a fighting man than the Hector of Homer. Itis this savage man-slayer who is suggested by most of the epi-thets, and I have no doubt that along with the character Homerinherited most if not all of these epithets from the tradition.Even in Homer there are times when Hector speaks in a wayquite unlike the sensitive son, father, and husband so admired byScott. For instance, in M245 ff. his words to Polydamas areunnecessarily cruel and savage, and should seem doubly so toanyone who shares Scott's conception of the nature of Hector.Of course, as we have seen, some sound critics do not shareScott's admiration for the Hector of Homer. Leaf (note ad loc.)finds this "unjust and violent reproach [of Polydamas] notinconsistent with the character of Hector." It would certainlyseem that, if Homer invented Hector and chose his epithetswith a completely free hand, he has not been especially skilful.Scott himself assures us (p. 218), " There is no doubt that thecharacterof Hector, with his seeming boldness and reputation soout of all proportion to his actual achievements, is at first sightextremely baffling." Surely the simplest way to explain anyinconsistencies one may feel exist in Homer's portrait of Hector,including this peculiar emphasis in the epithets on qualities notparticularly characteristicof the Hector of the Iliad, is to assumethat they result from Homer's effort to modify and humanizea traditional character, to change a savage warrior into theHector whom so many of us admire. But, in the last analysis,the question of whether or not the epithets used of Hector in theIliad fit his character in that poem must remain to some degreea subjective one. It is, moreover, closely bound up with thewhole complicated subject of Homer's technique in the use ofornamental epithets.

236


30/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.Fortunately, in evaluating Scott's argument on this point weare not entirely dependent on these subjective and thereforeuncertain grounds. Even if one feels that Scott is correct in hiscontention that the Homeric epithets do fit the Hector of theIliad, this does not in any way contribute to the proof thatHector is the invention of Homer, since many of the other char-acters are given epithets which can all be explained from theirportraits in the Iliad. There is, for example, no epithet usedof Agamemnon, Aias, or Diomedes which is not in complete

harmony with the portraits of those characters in the Iliad; andthese are all characters who Scott believes are traditional. When,therefore, Scott says, "If Hector be an old and traditional herohe should bring into the poem with him some trace of his earlierexistence," he is again demanding of his opponents more thanhe has a right to ask. All that the facts justify us in saying is,"If Hector be an old and traditional hero he may bring intothe poem with him some trace of his earlier existence." Some ofthe Homeric heroes-those cited by Scott for example, Achilles,Odysseus, and Priam-do seem to bring with them such traces.Some, on the other hand, including for example Aias, Diomedes,and Agamemnon, who Scott himself grants are traditional, donot bring with them such traces. If, then, a character doesbring with him these "traces of an earlier existence," this isvalid evidence that he is traditional and not the invention ofHomer; anyone who feels that the epithets used of Hector areinappropriate can, therefore, justly offer this consideration tosupport the view that Hector is a traditional character. But theevidence derived from these epithets will not work the otherway; if a character does not bring with him traces of an earlierexistence the epithets applied to him in Homer simply do notshow us whether he is traditional or not. The presence of anepithet difficult to interpret from the events of the poem provesmuch; the absence of such an epithet proves nothing. In short,there are two powerful objections to Scott's point about the epi-thets: it is doubtful if it is true, and even if it were it wouldnot contribute to his case, because by following his method wecould show that nearly all the characters are the invention ofHomer, and this would unfortunately prove too much.On p. 234 Scott devotes some time to a reiteration of his pointabout Paris' foreign name and Hector's name with its "good

237


31/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.Greek derivation," as though by mere repetition this materialcould acquire relevance. But no amount of repetition of thispoint about Greek and foreign names can twist these data intosupport for the theory that the characters with Greek nameswere invented by Homer.As an addition to his theory about Hector and perhaps toanticipate a possible cogent objection that it is strange for thisinvented Hector to be able to play so crucial a role in the story ofPatroclus, and actually to destroy so important a Greek hero,Scott maintains that Homer invented Patroclus so that hisinvented Hector could have "some military glory" (p. 235).The facility with which Scott here builds conjecture upon con-jecture is curiously reminiscent of the techniqueof the Dissectors,who, to promote their theories, or remove objections to them, orsimply carriedaway by the heady joy of creation, call forth fromtheir teeming imaginations a great host of poems and poets andgive us their names and dates and a detailed analysis of theirpeculiar merits and defects. More than any other one manScott himself has made many of us very dubious of this type ofHomeric "scholarship." Scott devotes but little space to histheory about Patroclus, which he apparently regards as onlyincidental to his main argument. I hope in a study of theHomeric audience to present evidenceto show that Patroclus is atraditional character and not the invention of Homer, and inthe belated interests of brevity I shall content myself here withcommenting on the one detail in Scott's argument which isclosely related to his remarks about Hector and Paris in theCypria. One awkward fact for Scott's belief that Hector andPatroclus were invented by Homer is that Patroclus as well asHector is mentioned in the Cypria. We have seen how Scott hasdealt with this troublesome presence of Hector in the Cypriaand it is no surprise to find him pursuing the same method withPatroclus. Proclus' summary of the Cypria tells us that in thatpoem Patroclus took Lycaon to Lemnos and sold him. Hereagain, Scott believes, the Cypria ceases to represent pre-Homerictradition and simply gives us post-Homeric invention. " . .. theauthor of the Cypria, unable to explain the absenceof Patroclusfrom tradition, reshapesthe story of Lycaon as found in Homer,to give Patroclus a place in his poem. In the Iliad it wasAchilles and not Patroclus who sold Lycaon (


32/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.the author of the Cypria changed the Iliad to secure a littleglory for Patroclus, in the same manner he gave to Hector thehonor of slaying Protesilaus." It was natural enough for Scott,who had already convinced himself in connection with Hectorand Protesilaus that the author of the Cypria took a perversedelight in controverting Homer by silly little inventions of hisown, to seize upon this detail about Lycaon as a confirmation ofhis estimate. But whatever one may think of Scott's previouscharge against the author of the Cypria, a glance at I 740-7will show that in this case he has been unjust. In these linesHomer himself tells us explicitly that the beautiful silver bowlwhich Euneiis paid for Lycaon was given to Patroclus, notdirectly to Achilles:

vto 8e IIptadLuotovKaovoqs vov MEOKEIIarpo'KAk powiI7acovl8r,sEv'vos (746-7).Obviously there is no contradiction between the Iliad and theCypria on this point. In all probability Homer and the authorof the Cypria both imagined Patroclus as actually taking Lycaonto Lemnos, but since he was Achilles' captive Achilles could byeither poet be said to have sold him. Whether Homer inventedthis or is following tradition is, of course, impossible to say forcertain. To me the very fact that Homer's two incidentalreferences are slightly different but yet perfectly consistent sug-gests that the detail is part of the tradition. They seem to me toimply a fuller picture of the event than one would expect ifHomer had merely invented this incident, which has no real partin his own story.Scott is clearly convinced that his own great admiration andaffection for Hector are shared by Homer himself, and onegathers that Scott feels this to be a slight hint that Hector isHomer's own creation.24 All this is merely Scott's impression;some will agree with it and some will not. In fact, some are

24 Similar views have been expressed about Eumaeus by Belzner(Homerische Probleme, II [Leipzig and Berlin, 1912], pp. 60 f.). Belznerbelieves that Homer has an especial affection for Eumaeus and suggests"vielleicht riihrt das daher, dass er eine selbsteigene Sch6pfung seinerPhantasie ist." He assures us further (p. 249), "Es ist ja eine einfachepsychologische Wahrheit, dass man Erfindungen des eigenen Geistesirmmer mit besonderem Interesse betrachtet und besonders liebevollausstattet."

239


33/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.even convinced that Homer is prejudiced against Hector andmakes efforts to detract from his due share of glory. But in anycase Homer's supposed affection for Hector has nothing to dowith the question of whether Hector was a traditional figure orHomer's own creation. It is said that parents often becomevery fond of adopted children.Scott further suggests that "'just because he was the poet'sown" Homer may have used Hector as a "mouthpiece" toexpress some of his own ideas (p. 236). He may, for instance,have used Hector to express his own religious rationalism inM237-43 where Hector declares his scepticism about omensdrawn from the the flight of birds. If this has anything of thesignificance Scott attaches to it, then it is certainly strange thatin the Odyssey Homer puts the same idea into the mouth of thescoundrel Eurymachus (,]181-2). This very point, oddlyenough, is stressed by Geddes25as evidence that Homer does notapproveof Hector's views in M, but includes them as part of hisportrait of an impiously boastful character. How simple itwould all be for Scott if he were a Separatist; then this passagein f3 could even be twisted into evidence that Hector was usedas the poet's mouthpiece in M. The author of 3 is obviously anddeliberately rebuking the earlier poet's impious views by puttingthem into the mouth of Eurymachus. Unverkennbar It mightfurther be noted, incidentally, that, while Scott believes thatthese views expressed by Hector must have shocked Homer'saudience, Leaf (note on M239) finds them quite " in the spiritof the Homeric age." Mure, who certainly does not share Scott'sadmiration for Hector, has, however, anticipated him in regard-ing Hector here as the mouthpiece of Homer himself. "Inplacing these noble doctrines in the mouth of Hector, who else-where shows himself so little under their influence, the poetseems but to avail himself of the habitually vainglorious tongueof that hero, to insinuate his own secret contempt for the as-cendency assigned by his age to blind fatality over personalexertion in the conduct of events." 26The final point offeredby Scott need not detain us long. ie-marking that the malignity of Hera and Athena towards Hector

25 The Problem of the Homeric Poems (London, 1878), p. 106.26 A Critical History of the Language and Literature of Antient Greece

(2nd ed., London, 1854), I, p. 496.

240


34/36

HOMER AND HECTOR." cannot be explained by anything which has happened in thepoem," Scott explains this as follows: ". . . in the tradition itwas Paris who was the leader of the Trojans, and it was againsthim that Hera and Athena were both enraged" (p. 237). Homercould not change this tradition of bitter hostility and so when hecreated Hector as a new leader the bitterness of the two goddesses"was an entailment on that leadership." This ingenious ex-planation is so patently unnecessary that it is not likely to winconverts. No better statement of the real reason for the hostilityof Hera and Athena can be found than in this very paragraphofScott's: " The reason is that Hector was the champion in a wardue to the scorning of their charms. He was hated not for hisown sake but for his cause." That is surely all the "explana-tion " one needs. Homer has made it clear beyond question thatthe hatred of Hera and Athena was not concentrated on Paris, oreven on his family, but extended to all Trojans and even to thevery city itself. To anyone who reads Zeus' words to Hera inA it is apparentthat these goddesseshate Hector with a fanaticalhatred not because he is "substituting for Paris" but simplybecause he is a Trojan.

sai/Lovvi), rn vv ereIlIpa alos IpLtajoto TE TraiSeSToorra KaKa peSovUe, o T aer7repXe? /Leveacvetc'IXhov k4aXa7raeaL EVKTrlAEVov 7rTTOXI0poV;el 0, V y' elaeXOovTaa T7rXaa KaL eiXeaLua/Kp(cJov /3e/3pOoios Ilpl'alov Ipta'lOtoe Te 7ratiagaAAov' TE TpcaS, TOTE KEV XoA,ov keaKecralo (31-6).

Their hatred clearly has nothing to do with the question ofwhether Hector was traditional or invented by Homer.In his final words on this subject Scott returns once again tohis point about the Greek names given to Hector and his family.Methinks he doth protest too much. But this time I refrainfrom comment.Throughout his discussion of Paris and Hector in Homer and

in the tradition Scott attributes to Homer an attitude towardsthe tradition which I find completely unconvincing. I can con-ceive of a Homer who felt himself so bound by tradition that heeven reproduceddetails of that tradition which impress modernreaders at least as very strange or as defects in his art; and Ican conceive of a Homer who treated the tradition with great3

241


35/36

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.freedom, omitting and adding characters and incidents of thegreatest importance; but the figure which Scott conjures up of aHomer who at times slavishly follows the tradition even thoughit involves him in what Scott feels are "great contradictions,"and at other times abandonsthat tradition entirely, creating newcharacters and incidents of such vital importance that he reallyproduces a completely new story,-such a figure is to me simplyincredible.One remarkablefeature of this chapter is Scott's repeated andconfident categorical assertion of the truth of his hypothesis.Indeed, one not familiar with the subject might well be led tothink that Scott was dealing with accepted fact rather than withan improbableguess. As we read these numerous positive state-ments it is impossible to avoid recalling some words expressedbyScott himself in a review of Woodhouse's Composition ofHomer's Odyssey,27 another work which excels in confidentaffirmations about the unknowable. "I have no faith thatanyone can by the help of Homer do more than guess what isback of him." Scott means this as a warning to those who, likeWoodhouse, make confident assertions about what lies back ofHomer. But it is really a two-edged doctrine and is equallyapplicable to those who, like Scott, make confident assertionsabout what does not lie back of Homer.

I am conscious that these remarks have been prolonged togreat length and that at times I may have dwelt too long onpoints which Scott himself might well consider of only minorimportance to his hypothesis; but this has been deliberate. Ifelt it was necessary to consider carefully every point offered byScott in support of his theory; I have tried to avoid the con-venient method of enthusiastically attacking those points inScott's case which seemedweak, and passing over in silence thosewhich could prove embarrassing. This, then, is all which Scottcould find to support his belief that Homer invented Hector;this represents his entire case. Everyone familiar with Scott'swork will share my own conviction that it is the best case whichcould be made. But no industry can find, no erudition can pro-duce, and no ingenuity can create evidence where none exists;no skill in argument can conceal the troublesome truth thatall these points are either invalid or irrelevant. We have

27C. J., XXVI (1930-31), p. 237.

242


36/36

HOMER AND HECTOR.seen that they have no weight individually, and " a mass of suchimponderables has no cumulative ponderosity."28 The struc-ture erected with such industry, learning, and cunning collapsesimmediately when once we apply the instrument Scott himselfhas used so often and so well to demolish the fanciful towers ofthe Dissectors-a simple appeal to the facts.

FREDERICK M. COMBELLACK.UNIVERSITY OF OREGON.

28

243

Homer and Hector

Documents

Transcript of Homer and Hector