In regard to the state of the arts, Grote and Thirlwall are at variance on an important question. The latter says, "That the art of writing already existed, though probably in a very rude state, before his [Homer's] age, it is scarcely possible to doubt." The former positively asserts that "neither coined money, nor the art of writing, nor painting, nor sculpture, nor imaginative architecture, belong to the Homeric and Hesiodic times." And then in a note, “The dhuara Auypa mentioned in Iliad vi. 168, if they prove anything, are rather an evidence against than for the existence of alphabetical writing at the time when the lliad was composed. "f On this famous and much disputed passage, Thirlwall acutely observes, that it "has been the subject of controversy, perhaps, more earnest than the case deserved. It has been disputed whether the tablet contained alphabetical characters or mere pictures. The former seems to be the simplest and easiest interpretation of the poet's words: but if admitted, it only proves, what could hardly be questioned even without this evidence, [?] that the poet was not so ignorant of the art as never to have heard of its existence. * * * And on the other hand, if the tablet contained only a picture or a series of imitative pictures, it would be evident that where the want of alphabetical writing was so felt, and had begun to be so supplied by drawing, the step by which the Greeks adopted the Phoenician characters must have been very soon taken, and it might be imagined that the poet was only describing a ruder state of the art which had acquired a new form in his time."§ And his last suggestion on this point is certainly ingenious and plausible : "According to every hypothesis the origin of the Homeric poetry is wrapt in mystery; as must be the case with the beginning of a new period when that which precedes it is very obscure. And it would certainly be no unparalleled or surprising coincidence if the production of a great work, which formed the most momentous epoch in the history of Greek literature, should have concurred with either the first introduction, or a new application of the most important of all inventions * This question of writing brings us at once to the Homeric controversy. On this Thirlwall says but little what he does say, strongly favors the personality of Homer and the unity of the Homeric poems. At one thing we are much surprised: he rejects the existence of the rhapsodists as a gratuitous and improbable supposition. In support of the customary hypothesis, Mr. Grote adduces some conclusive instances, particularly the assertion of Xenophon, (Sympos. iii. 5,) that there were educated gentlemen in his time, at Athens, who could repeat both poems by heart; for Xenophon, we know, was a very straightforward and matter-of-fact man, not lightly to be suspected of inaccuracy or exaggeration. Throughout the whole investigation, Mr. G. has shown great discrimination in keeping distinct various questions which have been mixed up with and run into each other-the personality of the poet, the manner in which his poems were preserved, their separate or identical authorship, the time when they assumed their present form, &c. After alluding to the numerous discrepancies of statement respecting the epoch and birth-place of Homer, he is inclined to adopt as the most plausible theory, that he was the eponymous hero of the poetical fraternity of Homerids in the Ionic Island of Chios. The date of the Iliad and Odyssey, he places in the century before the first Olympiad. That the poems were preserved by the professional bards without any assistance from manuscripts, he considers proved, by the fact that blindness was not a disqualification for the profession. (Hymn. ad Apoll. 172.) The Wolfian theory that Pisistratus first Thirlwa 1, p. 247. tion-the unity of authorship. Mr. Grote, after lamenting the ferocious dogmatism which has too generally characterized this controversy, and confessed the difficulty, with our present limited means of knowledge, of forming a satisfactory conclusion one's self, much more of convincing others, thus continues: made two complete poems out of what were before fragmentary ballads, he rejects as "not only unsupported by sufficient testimony, but also opposed to other testimony, as well as to a strong force of internal probability." It "ascribes to Peisistratus a character not only materially different from what is indicated by Cicero and Pausanias, [Wolf's chief authorities,] who represented him not as having put "Nevertheless no classical scholar can be together atoms originally distinct, but as easy without some opinion respecting the authorthe renovator of an ancient order subse-ship of these immortal poems; and the more defective the evidence we possess, the more esquently lost-but also in itself unintelligi- sential is it that all that evidence should be ble and inconsistent with Grecian habit marshalled in the clearest order, and its bearing and feeling." upon the points in controversy distinctly understood beforehand. Both these conditions seem to have been often neglected throughout the long-continued Homeric discussion. To illustrate the first point: Since two poems are comprehended in the problem to be solved, the natural process would be, first to study the easier of the two, and then to apply the conclusions hence deduced as a means of explaining the other. Now the Odyssey, looking at its aggregate character, is incomparably more easy to explain than the Iliad. Yet most Homeric critics apply the microscope at once, and in the first instance, to the Iliad. To illustrate the second point: What evidence is sufficient to negative the supposition that the Iliad or the Odyssey is a poem-originally and intentionally one? Not simply particular gaps and contradictions, though they be even gross and numerous; but the preponderance of these proofs of mere unprepared coalescence over the other proofs of designed adaptation scattered throughout the whole poem. For the poet (or the co-operating poets, if more than one) may have intended to compose a harmonious whole, but may have realized their intention incompletely and left partial faults; or perhaps the contradictory lines may have crept in through a corrupt text. A survey of the whole poem is necessary to determine the question, and this necessity, too, has not always been attended to." Vol. II., pp. 219, 220. "To sustain the inference that Peisistratus was the first architect of the Iliad and Odyssey, it ought at least to be shown that no other long and continuous poems existed during the earlier centuries. But the contrary of this is known to be the fact. The Ethiopis of Arktinus, which contained 9100 verses, dates from a period more than two centuries earlier than Peisistratus; several others of the lost cyclic epics, some among them of considerable length, appear during the century succeeding Arktinus; and it is important to notice that three or four at least of these poems passed under the name of Homer. There is no greater intrinsic difficulty in supposing long epics to have begun with the Iliad and Odyssey than with the Ethiopsis; the ascendency of Homer and the subordinate position of Arktinus in the history of early Grecian poetry, tend to prove the former in preference to the latter." Vol. II., pp. 208-9. But the chief argument is derived from the whole tenor of the poems themselves. "There is nothing either in the Iliad or Odyssey which savors of modernism, applying that term to the age of Peisistratus; nothing which brings to our view the alterations brought about by two centuries in the Greek language, the coined money, the habits of writing and reading, the despotisms and republican governments, the close military array, the improved construction of ships, the Amphictyonic convocations, *** &c., familiar to the latter epoch, which Onomacritus and the other literary friends of Peisistratus could hardly have failed to introduce, had they then for the first time undertaken the task of piecing together many self-existent epics into one large aggregate. Everything in the two great Homeric poenis, both in substance and in language, belongs to an age two or three centuries earlier than Peisistratus." Vol. II., PP. 213-14. At length we arrive at the great ques The Odyssey (to which Mr. Grote, contrary to the usual opinion, but we think on good grounds, does not assign a later date than that of the Iliad) he views as bearing throughout unequivocal proofs of unity of design. With respect to the Iliad his opinion is different, and the theory which he propounds is certainly original and ingenious. That poem presents to him the appearance of "a house built upon a plan comparatively narrow, and subsequently enlarged by successive additions." It was originally an Achilleis, comprising the first and eighth books with the books from the eleventh to the twenty-second inclusive. The last two books are a sort of appendix merely, but those from the second to the seventh, together with the tenth, "are of a wider and more comprehensive character, and convert the poem into an Iliad." The ninth book is a later interpolation, there being many passages in the eleventh and following books, which show that apology and atonement had not been offered to Achilles by Agamemnon. This is explained at length, and also the continuity of structure observable in the books marked off as the original Achilleis, and the discrepancies introduced by the remaining books. Having characterized this theory as original and ingenious, we must be excused from expressing any further opinion upon it. Our own opinions about Homer have been always matter of faith rather than reason; we are too much interested in his romance ever to read him very critically; and as to the Teutonic Homeroclasts, we never could force ourselves to go continuously through one of them. On our slight acquaintance with them (and we refer more particularly to Wolf and Lachmann) they appear to us so prosaic and un-ideal and Poco Curanteish, that, however great their erudition, we do not admit their vocation to criticise poetry at all. With a man who puts the Iliad on the same footing with the Spanish ballads, we can find no common ground. This brings us to the close of the first part of Mr. Grote's work; about half way through his second volume, and rather more than half way through Thirlwall's first. We shall follow our historians into historical Greece in our next number. THE DEVIL FISH. A MORE Singular creature than the devilfish is not to be found in the American waters. From all that we have been enabled to learn, he is peculiar to the coast of Africa, and in this country to the coasts of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. He is of no value as an article of food, but as a sporting fish is highly prized by the more daring of southern gentlemen; and as he is commonly known as the vampire of the ocean, it may readily be imagined that he is not distinguished for his amiability or the beauty of his personal appearance. His body is large and unsightly, the transverse much exceeding his longitudinal diameter; the thickness of his body varies from three to four feet, and it is only about one-eighth longer than his tail, the entire length usually measuring between sixteen and twenty feet. His mouth is subterminal, and abundantly supplied with small teeth; his eyes are prominent, and skin rough and leathery; he is supplied with a pair of flexible flaps or wings with which he navigates his native element with great velocity; and his snout is ornamented by a couple of horns or feelers, which are upwards of two feet in length. With regard to color, his back is an olive black and his belly a muddy white. He is distinguished for his activity, feeds upon small fish, and is in season (for sporting purposes) during the summer months. The intelligence of this monster is also quite as curious as his appearance, for it is recorded of him that he will sometimes seize the anchor of a small vessel, and hurry it hither and thither over the liquid plain at a fearful rate, to the great consternation of the poor sailors. The physical construction of the devil-fish differs materially from that of the whale or porpoise; for it does not, like them, rise to the surface of the water for the purpose of breathing the air of heaven.. That the devil-fish may be taken with a large cord and a mammoth hook seems to be an established fact, and that it requires a bold-hearted man to grapple with him at all, is equally certain; but the ordinary implements employed to capture him are the cord and harpoon. Of the few sportsmen in our country who have studied the character of the devil-fish, and enjoyed the truly heroic pastime of capturing him, we have never heard of any one who could tell a more interesting story than the Hon. William Elliott, of Beaufort, S. C. The fame of this gentleman having reached our ears, soon after we had conceived the idea of writing and compiling a book on the Game Fish of America, we obtained a letter of introduction, and solicited at his hands a record of his experience. He promptly complied with our request, and did so in a manner which convinced us that he was not only a rare sportsman, but an accomplished gentleman. As we have never personally enjoyed the satisfaction of capturing a devil-fish, we shall avail ourselves of Mr. Elliott's very interesting narrative, regretting, however, that we shall be compelled, for want of room, to select from the matter which we have received, those passages which will be more likely to interest the general reader. It is the habit of this fish, says Mr. Elliot, to ply its arms rapidly before its mouth while it swims, and to clasp with the utmost closeness and obstinacy whatever body it has once inclosed. In this way the boats of fishermen have often been dragged from their moorings, and overset, by the devil-fish having laid hold of the grapple. It was in obeying this peculiarity of their nature, that a shoal of these fish, as they swept by in front of my grandfather's residence, would sometimes, at flood-tide, approach so near to the shore as to come in contact with the water-fence; the firm posts of which they would clasp, and struggle to uptear, till they lashed the water into foam with their powerful wings. This bold invasion of his landmarks my grandfather was determined to resent. He launched his eight-oared barge, prepared his tackle, notified his neighbors of his plan, and waited patiently for the next appearance of his enemies. It was not many days before they re-appeared. He then manned his boat, and soon glided, with muffled oars, into the midst of the shoal. 'May," said my grandfather to his favorite African slave, who acted as his har pooner, "look out for the leader, and strike a sure blow." "Let me 'lone for dat, massa," said May, as, staff in hand, he planted his foot firmly on the bow of the barge. He stood there but a second, when, grasping his staff in both hands, he sprang into the air, and descended directly on the back of the largest devil-fish, giving the whole weight of his body to the force of the stroke! The weapon sunk deep into the body of the fish, and before he had tightened the rope, "May" had already swam to the boat, and been dragged on board by his fellow blackies, who were delighted at his exploit. The fish now dashed off furiously, with the barge in tow. The bugle sounded the concerted signal. The neighboring planters manned their boats to intercept the barge, so that a small fleet of boats was soon drawn swiftly along with the tide. To conclude my story, the fish was wearied out, drawn to the top of the water, speared to death, and when landed on the beach, measured twenty feet across the back. Another, and quite a funny story, for which we are indebted to Mr. Elliott, is as follows. The hero was a planter named Jones, who, like a thousand others, was constantly cherishing the illusion, that he was destined to discover the theory of perpetual motion. It so happened, on a certain occasion, that this individual, while floating on the water near Beaufort, S. C., in a small skiff, discovered a devil-fish sunning himself after the manner of the tribe. Jones, says Mr. Elliott, was a sportsman to the back-bone: he cast a glance at the smallness of his boat, but it was a glance only; his eye rested on his bright harpoon, which lay invitingly at his side. He sprang forward, secured his line to the head of the boat, and darted his harpoon at the sportive monster. A violent fall, at full length, into the bottom of the boat, as it shot forward almost from beneath his feet, was the first indication he received that his aim had been good. It was not until some minutes had elapsed, that he had the power to crawl from his recumbent posture, and occupy his seat at the stern, when he soon settled himself and enjoyed the luxury of his situation. The wind fanned his face, his hair streamed off at right angles from his head, and the 瞥 water foamed furiously about the stern, as the boat, impelled by more than Triton power, darted through the water with the speed of an arrow. And now he approached his home, and rejoiced to see that several of his friends were assembled on the bluff to welcome his return. But what was their amazement, to behold and recognize Jones, seated upright in the boat, which seemed to fly through the waters without the aid of oars or sail, or any apparent impulsation. Amazement was their first emotion--joy their second; and they shouted forth in triumph, as the thought suddenly flashed upon them," Jones has discovered perpetual motion!!" He shouted to them for assistance, but his voice, tremulous with excitement, never reached their ears. He waved his hat and shouted again; hats waved in return, and a triumphant shout responded from his friends, but no boat came to his rescue. "These violent motions," thought he," must have an end, and even devil-fish must tire. Friction at least, that which has so often foiled me, now stands my friend." The fish did pause at last, but not until the boat had been hurried quite out of the harbor, and was floating on the wide Atlantic. It was then that our sportsman left his position at the stern, where his weight was necessary to preserve the equipoise, and cut off with his penknife the line which bound him to his formidable companion. The oars had been lost overboard, but his sail remained to waft him home. But it was late at night when he arrived, exhausted by excitement and fatigue, and explained to his anxious friends the mystery of his unintelligible, but fortunately for him, not perpetual motion. The chase of the devil-fish, continues Mr. Elliott, may now be said to be an established diversion among the planters in the vicinity of Port Royal Sound. They make Bay Point their place of rendezvous, and, well provided with lances and harpoons, sally forth in search of them, at high water, when they enter the inlet to feed upon the shrimps and small fish that abound along the shores. On the ebb tide they return again to the sea, so that the time for seeking them is confined to a few hours in the day. Their presence upon the feeding ground is indicated by a slight projection above the water of their wings. Their movements are peculiar and bird-like. Sometimes, though not often, you may approach him in shallow water; but the best opportunity for harpooning him, is offered by waiting quietly near the spot where he has disappeared, until, having ceased to feed, he strikes out for the deep water, and having reached it, begins a series of somersets, that give the sportsman a capital chance to strike him. You first see the feelers thrown out of the water, then the white stomach, and lastly, the long strange-looking tail. These evolutions are frequently repeated, and his presence is shown to the observant sportsman, by the boiling of the water from below as from a deep cauldron. It must not be supposed, that there is no risk in the pursuit and capture of this formidable game. The spice of danger mingling with this sport, seems to increase its relish. He who wields the harpoon, should have a quick eye, a steady arm, and a cool head; for if he loses his presence of mind and suffers himself to be tangled in the rope, during the furious runs of the fish, he may lose his life. Another of Mr. Elliott's well-told stories runneth as follows:-On the morning of the 25th of August, three boats might be descried, moving briskly from the Bay Point, shove across Broad River, (S. C.) two of them furnished with tackle, and manned by a party of high spirits, eager for the rapture of this new perilous pastime. A number of amateurs had taken passage in the third boat, which was to perform the duty of a tender. A school of our game having been discovered, a few brisk strokes brought us in the midst of the play-ground of the devil-fish, over a bank two or three fathoms deep. *** Here, then, we have captured one devilfish. He lies on the back of Hilton Head Island, at the foot of the Queen's Oak. We congratulate each other on our success, and then betake ourselves to an examination of what is curious or striking in his conformation. We note with surprise his protruding eyes, his projecting horns, his capacious mouth, and his complicated machinery for respiration. We note, too, that, like the great ones of the earth, he is attended by a band of parasites, which, unlike their prototypes, remain attached to their patrons after they are stranded. The pilot fish which followed him into shoal |