The fallacy is that of disregarding the Homeric poet's audience.
He did not sing for Aristotle or for Aristarchus, or for modern
minute and reflective inquirers, but for warriors and ladies. He
certainly satisfied them; but if he does not satisfy microscopic
professors, he is described as a syndicate of many minstrels,
living in many ages.

In the present volume little is said in defence of the poet's
consistency. Several chapters on that point have been excised. The
way of living which Homer describes is examined, and an effort is
made to prove that he depicts the life of a single brief age of
culture. The investigation is compelled to a tedious minuteness,
because the points of attack--the alleged discrepancies in
descriptions of the various details of existence--are so minute as
to be all but invisible.

The unity of the Epics is not so important a topic as the methods
of criticism. They ought to be sober, logical, and self-
consistent. When these qualities are absent, Homeric criticism may
be described, in the recent words of Blass, as "a swamp haunted by
wandering fires, will o' the wisps."

In our country many of the most eminent scholars are no believers
in separatist criticism. Justly admiring the industry and
erudition of the separatists, they are unmoved by their arguments,
to which they do not reply, being convinced in their own minds.
But the number and perseverance of the separatists make on "the
general reader" the impression that Homeric unity is chose
_jugee_, that _scientia locuta est_, and has condemned
Homer. This is far from being the case: the question is still