874 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



One word, however, upon the " days " 

 of Genesis. We do not hear the authority 

 of Scripture impeached on the ground that 

 it assigns to tlie Almighty eyes and ears, 

 hands, arms, and feet ; nay, even the emo- 

 tions of the human being. This being so, 

 I am unable to understand why any dis- 

 paragement to the credit of the sacred 

 books should ensue because, to describe 

 the order and successive stages of the Di- 

 vine working, these have been distributed 

 into "days." What was the thing required 

 in order to make this great procession of 

 acts intelligible and impressive ? Surely it 

 was to distribute the parts each into some 

 integral division of time, having the char- 

 acter of something complete in itself, of a 

 revolution, or outset and return. There 

 are but three such divisions familiarly 

 known to man. Of these the day was the 

 most familiar to human perceptions ; and 

 probably on this account its figurative use 

 is admitted to be found in prophetic texts, 

 as, indeed, it largely pervades ancient and 

 modern speech. Given the object in view, 

 which indeed can hardly be questioned, 

 docs it not appear that the " day," more 

 definitely- separated than either month or 

 year from what precedes and what follows, 

 was appropriately chosen for the purpose of 

 conveying the idea of development by grada- 

 tion in the process which the book .«ets forth ? 



I now come to the last portion of my 

 task, which is to follow Dr. Reville into his 

 exposition of the Olympian mythology. Not, 

 indeed, the Homeric or Greek religion alone, 

 for he has considered the case of all relig- 

 ions, and disposes of them with equal facil- 

 ity. Of any other system than the Olympi- 

 an, it would be presumption in me to speak, 

 as I have, beyond this limit, none but the 

 most vague and superficial knowledge. But 

 on the Olympian system in its earliest and 

 least adulterated, namely, its Ilomci-ic, de- 

 velopment, whether with success or not, I 

 have freely employed a large shiire of such 

 leisure as more than thirty years of my Par- 

 liamentary life, passed in freedom from the 

 calls of office, have supplied. I hope that 

 there. is not in Dr. Reville's treatment of 

 other systems that slightness of texture and 

 that facility and rapidity of conclusion 

 which seem to me to mark his performances 

 in the Olympian field. 



In the main he follows what is called 

 the solar theory. In his widest view he 

 embraces no more than "the religion of 

 nature " (pp. 94, lUO), and he holds that all 

 religion has sprung from the worship of 

 objects visible and sent^ible. 



His first essay is upon Ileracles, whom I 

 have found to be one of the most difficult 

 and, so to speak, irreducible characters in 

 the Olympian mythology. In the Tyrian 

 system Ileracles, as Melkart, says Dr. Re- 

 ville in p. 95, is " a brazen god, the devourer 

 of children, the terror of men " ; but, with- 

 out any loss of identity, he becomes in the 

 Greek system " the great lawgiver, the tamer 

 of monsters, the peacemaker, the liberator." 

 I am deeply impressed with the danger that 

 lurks in these summary and easy solutions ; 

 and I will offer a few words first on the 

 Greek Heracles generally, next on the Ho- 

 meric presentation of the character. 



Dr. L. Schmidt has contributed to Smith's 

 great Dictionary a large and careful article 

 on Heracles — an article which may almost 

 be called a treatise. Unlike Dr. Reville, to 

 whom the matter is so clear, he finds him- 

 self out of his depth in attempting to deal 

 with this highly incongruous character, 

 which meets us at so many points, as a 

 whole. But he perceives in the Heracles of 

 Greece a mixture of fabulous and historic 

 elements ; and the mythical basis is not, 

 according to him, a transplanted Melkart, 

 but is essentially Greek.* He refers to 

 Buttmann's " Mythologus " and MUller's 

 " Dorians " as the best treatises on the 

 subject, " both of which regard the hero as 

 a purely Greek character." Thus Dr. R6- 

 ville appears to be in conflict with the lead- 

 ing authorities, whom he does not confute, 

 but simply ignores. 



Homer himself may have felt the diffi- 

 culty, which Dr. Reville does not feel, for 

 he presents to us, in one and the same pas- 

 sage, a divided Heracles. Whatever of him 

 is not cidoIon,\ dwells among the Olympian 

 gods. This eidolon, however, is no mere 

 shade, but something that sees and speaks, 

 that mourns and threatens ; no " lawgiver," 

 or " peacemaker," or " liberator," but one 

 from whom the other shades fly in terror, 

 set in the place and company of sinners suf- 



* Smith's " Dictionary," ii, 400. 

 t "Od.," xi, 001-4. 



