"That the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ were not two complete poems, but small, separate, independent epic songs, celebrating single exploits of the heroes; and that these lays were, _for the first time_, written down and united as the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ by Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens."[2] [Footnote 2: Smith, ii. p. 501.] The former critics (Hédelin and Perrault) had been overruled, derided, and quashed by the force of public opinion; but Wolf brought so many arguments to support his views,--collected so formidable a mass of authorities, both traditional, internal, and written, that the classical world was obliged to meet him with fresh arguments, as ridicule would not again succeed. Thus arose the formidable Wolfian controversy, which "scotched," though not "killed," the belief of the critical world in Homer. The principal arguments he adduces are from the poems themselves, in his attempt to establish the non-being of writing at the time of their composition. Thus, in the _Odyssea_,[3] a master of a vessel has to remember his cargo, not having a list of his goods; in the _Iliad_,[4] Bellerophon carries a folded tablet containing writing or signs to Prætos in Lycia. This Wolf interprets to signify conventional marks, like the picture writing of the otherwise civilised Mexicans.[5] Again, in the _Iliad_ (VII. 175.), the chiefs are represented as throwing lots in a helmet, and the herald afterwards handing the lots round for recognition, as each of the lots bore a mark known only to the person who made it. From this Wolf argues that writing was unknown at the time, or the herald would have immediately read the names aloud. But do we not even now make use of such marks without confounding them with writing? This is nothing at all; and it must be remembered, firstly, that this does not apply to the Homeric time, but to the period of Troy; secondly, that if it had applied to that time, it would be absurd to expect from illiterate warrior chiefs, education superior to the mediæval crusaders, their counterparts at a later period of the world's progress. These are the principal arguments that Wolf adduces to prove the non-existence of writing at the Homeric period; whereas, far from proving anything, they are self-contradictory and incorrect. [Footnote 3: Lib. viii. 163.] [Footnote 4: Lib. vi. 168.] [Footnote 5: See Mure, vol. iii., Appendix L., p. 507. foll.; and Appendix M. vol. iii. p. 512. foll.; and see chap. vii. book III. vol. iii. p. 397. _passim_.] To prove that the Peisistratidæ first wrote down the poems of Homer, he cites Josephus (Orat. contr. Apion., I. 2.), who observes that-- "No writing, the authenticity of which is acknowledged, is found among the Greeks earlier than the poetry of Homer; and, _it is said_, that even he did not commit his works to writing, but that, having been preserved in the memory of men, the songs were afterwards connected."