hypothesis that, in the strictest sense, the personality of Homer is treated seriously; that a certain standard of inner harmony is everywhere presupposed in the manifestations of the personality; and that, with these two excellent auxiliary hypotheses, whatever is seen to be below this standard and opposed to this inner harmony is at once swept aside as un-Homeric.  But even this distinguishing characteristic, in place of wishing to recognise the supernatural existence of a tangible personality, ascends likewise through all the stages that lead to that zenith, with ever-increasing energy and clearness.  Individuality is ever more strongly felt and accentuated; the psychological possibility of a single Homer is ever more forcibly demanded.  If we descend backwards from this zenith, step by step, we find a guide to the understanding of the Homeric problem in the person of Aristotle.  Homer was for him the flawless and untiring artist who knew his end and the means to attain it; but there is still a trace of infantile criticism to be found in Aristotle—­i.e., in the naive concession he made to the public opinion that considered Homer as the author of the original of all comic epics, the Margites.  If we go still further backwards from Aristotle, the inability to create a personality is seen to increase; more and more poems are attributed to Homer; and every period lets us see its degree of criticism by how much and what it considers as Homeric.  In this backward examination, we instinctively feel that away beyond Herodotus there lies a period in which an immense flood of great epics has been identified with the name of Homer.

Let us imagine ourselves as living in the time of Pisistratus:  the word “Homer” then comprehended an abundance of dissimilarities.  What was meant by “Homer” at that time?  It is evident that that generation found itself unable to grasp a personality and the limits of its manifestations.  Homer had now become of small consequence.  And then we meet with the weighty question:  What lies before this period?  Has Homer’s personality, because it cannot be grasped, gradually faded away into an empty name?  Or had all the Homeric poems been gathered together in a body, the nation naively representing itself by the figure of Homer? Was the person created out of a conception, or the conception out of a person? This is the real “Homeric question,” the central problem of the personality.

The difficulty of answering this question, however, is increased when we seek a reply in another direction, from the standpoint of the poems themselves which have come down to us.  As it is difficult for us at the present day, and necessitates a serious effort on our part, to understand the law of gravitation clearly—­that the earth alters its form of motion when another heavenly body changes its position in space, although no material connection unites one to the other—­it likewise costs us some trouble to obtain a clear impression of that wonderful