DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9184#0153
Chap. V.] Recent Discoveries and the Homeric Poems. 131
down to us, among which the so-called Francois vase* is
conspicuous for its early age and its great variety of sub-
jects. This, we say, is the most natural view, but a little
consideration will show us that it is untenable. It is, in
fact, now generally abandoned ; and with reason. In the
first place, none of our vases of the so-called Corinthian,
Rhodian, or Cyrenaean classes can be carried back to the
age of Homer. And the chest of Cypselus, which closely
resembles them in subjects and style, probably belongs to
the seventh century. Secondly, if we compare the scenes
of the Homeric shield with the scenes of the vases and the
Cypseline chest, we shall find a strongly-marked contrast.
All the Homeric scenes are general or ethical; they repre-
sent phases of life and action, a city at war, ploughing, a
lawsuit, and the like; while all the scenes on the vases and
the chest are mythological, represent the doings of Perseus
or Herakles, or other heroes, or the interferences of the
gods in the life of the world. We have here a distinction
clear, deep-seated, and unmistakable; which proves, if
anything can be proved in archaeology, that the two- phases
of art are divided by a considerable period of time, and
belong to distinct civilisations. In the Hesiodic account of
the shield of Herakles, or at least the part of that account
which is not a mere copy of epic models, we do find scenes
which correspond very nearly with those existing on early
vases. But it is certain that the Hesiodic description is
later by many years than the Homeric.
Let us then dismiss this first theory and turn to the
second, which requires more respectful consideration, as it
has been se.t forth by very high authorities, Brunn for
instance, and is still upheld by Dr. Helbig and Mr. A. S.
Murray. This theory brings into connection the Homeric
shield and those Phoenician bowls of silver and of bronze
of which we have above spoken, and considers that Homer
* Monumenti dell' Institute, iv. pis. 54-58.
K 2
down to us, among which the so-called Francois vase* is
conspicuous for its early age and its great variety of sub-
jects. This, we say, is the most natural view, but a little
consideration will show us that it is untenable. It is, in
fact, now generally abandoned ; and with reason. In the
first place, none of our vases of the so-called Corinthian,
Rhodian, or Cyrenaean classes can be carried back to the
age of Homer. And the chest of Cypselus, which closely
resembles them in subjects and style, probably belongs to
the seventh century. Secondly, if we compare the scenes
of the Homeric shield with the scenes of the vases and the
Cypseline chest, we shall find a strongly-marked contrast.
All the Homeric scenes are general or ethical; they repre-
sent phases of life and action, a city at war, ploughing, a
lawsuit, and the like; while all the scenes on the vases and
the chest are mythological, represent the doings of Perseus
or Herakles, or other heroes, or the interferences of the
gods in the life of the world. We have here a distinction
clear, deep-seated, and unmistakable; which proves, if
anything can be proved in archaeology, that the two- phases
of art are divided by a considerable period of time, and
belong to distinct civilisations. In the Hesiodic account of
the shield of Herakles, or at least the part of that account
which is not a mere copy of epic models, we do find scenes
which correspond very nearly with those existing on early
vases. But it is certain that the Hesiodic description is
later by many years than the Homeric.
Let us then dismiss this first theory and turn to the
second, which requires more respectful consideration, as it
has been se.t forth by very high authorities, Brunn for
instance, and is still upheld by Dr. Helbig and Mr. A. S.
Murray. This theory brings into connection the Homeric
shield and those Phoenician bowls of silver and of bronze
of which we have above spoken, and considers that Homer
* Monumenti dell' Institute, iv. pis. 54-58.
K 2