{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48426/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48426","id":"gutenberg_48426","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48426","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Other","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Civilization, Germanic","Civilization, Homeric","Epic poetry, Germanic -- Greek influences","Epic poetry, Germanic -- History and criticism","Homer -- Influence"],"text":"Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological Series\n\n THE HEROIC AGE\n\n[Illustration: MAP OF CENTRAL EUROPE\n\nillustrating the Heroic Age of the Teutonic Peoples\n\nWhere the same name occurs both in capitals and italics the former\ndenote a position occupied in the early part of the Heroic Age, while\nthe latter mark a change or extension of territories.]\n\n\n\n\n THE HEROIC AGE\n\n BY\n\n H. MUNRO CHADWICK\n\n Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge\n\n Cambridge:\n at the University Press\n 1912\n Reprinted\n 1967\n\n Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press\n Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London, N.W. 1\n American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022\n\n PUBLISHER'S NOTE\n\nCambridge University Press Library Editions are reissues of\nout-of-print standard works from the Cambridge catalogue. The texts\nare unrevised and, apart from minor corrections, reproduce the latest\npublished edition.\n\n First published 1912\n Reprinted 1967\n\n First printed in Great Britain at the University Printing\n House, Cambridge\n Reprinted in the United States of America\n Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 13-13081\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe type of poetry commonly known as heroic is one which makes its\nappearance in various nations and in various periods of history. No\none can fail to observe that certain similar features are to be found\nin poems of this type which are widely separated from one another both\nin date and place of origin. In view of this fact it has seemed worth\nwhile to attempt a comparative study of two groups of such poems with\nthe object of determining the nature of the resemblances between them\nand the causes to which they are due. Occasional illustrations have\nbeen taken from other groups of poems belonging to the same type.\n\nThe first part of the book deals with the early heroic poetry and\ntraditions of the Teutonic peoples, more especially with those stories\nwhich were the common property of various Teutonic peoples. It is\npointed out that these stories all relate to a period with definite\nlimits--a period for which a considerable amount of information is\navailable from external sources. The subjects discussed include\nthe distribution of the stories and the relationship between the\nvarious versions of them, the antiquity of the earliest poems and the\nconditions under which they were produced. Lastly, an attempt has been\nmade to estimate the significance of the various elements, historical,\nmythical and fictitious, of which the stories are composed.\n\nThe second part deals with Greek heroic poetry and traditions. These\nrelate to a period for which little or no external evidence is\navailable; and consequently they present many problems, the bearings\nof which can hardly be estimated without reference to the existence\nof similar phenomena elsewhere. In general I have followed the same\nplan as in the first part, and made use throughout of the results\nobtained there. If some excuse is necessary for dealing with so well\nworn a theme I may plead that, so far as my knowledge goes, it has not\nhitherto been approached from this point of view.\n\nIn the third part attention has been called to the existence of a\nnumber of somewhat striking characteristics common to the two groups\nof poems and an attempt made to account for them. The conclusion to\nwhich I have been brought is that the resemblances in the poems are\ndue primarily to resemblances in the ages to which they relate and to\nwhich they ultimately owe their origin. The comparative study of heroic\npoetry therefore involves the comparative study of 'Heroic Ages'; and\nthe problems which it presents are essentially problems of anthropology.\n\nIn this conclusion I am glad to find myself in agreement with Dr\nHaddon, who suggested to me that a comparative study of this kind would\nbe a suitable subject for the Cambridge Archaeological and Ethnological\nSeries. I take this opportunity of thanking him for bringing the matter\nbefore the Syndics of the University Press and for the interest which\nhe has kindly taken in the progress of the work.\n\nOwing to the pressure of teaching and other duties a considerable time\nhas unfortunately elapsed since the earlier portions of the book were\nprinted. I would therefore respectfully call the reader's attention\nto the list of Addenda at the end, where references will be found to\nseveral important works which have appeared in the meantime.\n\nIn a work, such as this, which deals with records preserved in a number\nof different languages, difficulties necessarily arise with regard to\nthe spelling of proper names. In the representation of Teutonic names\nthe system adopted in my previous books has in general been retained.\nAny such system is of course open to objections, of the cogency of\nwhich I am quite aware; and consequently I have not felt inclined to\ncarry out my scheme with rigid consistency. The same remarks apply to\nthe representation of Greek names--which will doubtless displease many\ncritics. South Slavonic names and words are given according to the\nusual Croatian orthography.\n\nI cannot attempt here to enumerate the various scholars to whose\nwritings I am indebted. It will be seen that they are many and that\nmuch of what I have had to do is in the nature of criticism. One name\nhowever, that of Professor Ridgeway, I cannot leave unmentioned, since\nit is largely to his inspiring influence--by no means through his\nwritings alone--that my interest in these subjects is due.\n\nIt remains for me to record my obligations to a number of friends who\nhave generously responded to my requests for information or criticism\non various points. In particular I must mention Miss A. C. Paues, Mr\nA. B. Cook, Dr W. H. R. Rivers, Mr S. A. Cook, Professor J. W. H.\nAtkins, Professor A. Mawer, Mr E. H. Minns and Mr F. W. Green. Above\nall I am indebted to Mr E. C. Quiggin and Mr F. G. M. Beck, who have\nmost kindly read through a considerable part of the book in proof\nand several chapters even in manuscript. It is scarcely necessary to\nadd that in the sections dealing with Celtic history and poetry Mr\nQuiggin's criticism has been of the greatest value to me. My thanks\nare due, further, to my pupils, Mr C. A. Scutt, of Clare College, and\nMr Bruce Dickins, of Magdalene College, for similar kind services in\nthe proofs of the later chapters. From the staff of the University\nLibrary--in particular I must mention Mr A. Rogers and Mr O. Johnson--I\nhave received the same unfailing and courteous attention as in the\npast. Lastly, I have to thank the Syndics of the University Press for\nundertaking the publication of the book and the staff for the efficient\nand obliging way in which the printing and corrections have been\ncarried out.\n\n H. M. C.\n\n _December, 1911._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n CHAPTER PAGE\n\n I. THE EARLY NARRATIVE POETRY OF THE TEUTONIC PEOPLES 1\n\n II. THE HEROIC AGE OF THE TEUTONIC PEOPLES 19\n\n III. SCENE AND NATIONALITY IN THE HEROIC STORIES 30\n\n IV. THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE HEROIC POEMS 41\n\n V. THE POETRY AND MINSTRELSY OF EARLY TIMES 77\n\n VI. SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN THE HEROIC STORIES 110\n\n VII. MYTHICAL ELEMENTS IN THE HEROIC POEMS 131\n\n VIII. THE USE OF FICTION IN THE HEROIC POEMS 151\n\n IX. THE HEROIC AGE OF GREECE 168\n\n X. THE HOMERIC POEMS 193\n\n XI. EARLY GREEK POETRY AND MINSTRELSY 221\n\n XII. SUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN THE HOMERIC POEMS 249\n\n XIII. MYTH IN THE HOMERIC POEMS 263\n\n XIV. FICTION IN THE HOMERIC POEMS 292\n\n XV. THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF TEUTONIC AND GREEK\n HEROIC POETRY 320\n\n XVI. SOCIETY IN THE HEROIC AGE 344\n\n XVII. GOVERNMENT IN THE HEROIC AGE 366\n\n XVIII. RELIGION IN THE HEROIC AGE 393\n\n XIX. THE CAUSES AND ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OF THE\n HEROIC AGE 432\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\n CHAPTER PAGE\n\n I. THE USE OF HEROIC NAMES IN ENGLAND 64\n\n II. ON THE DATING OF CERTAIN SOUND-CHANGES IN ANGLO-SAXON 66\n\n III. LITERARY INFLUENCE IN BEOWULF 73\n\n IV. ON THE HEROIC POETRY OF THE SLAVONIC PEOPLES 101\n\n V. THE HEROIC POETRY OF THE CELTIC PEOPLES 105\n\n VI. THE TROJAN CATALOGUE 244\n\n VII. THE BATTLE OF KOSSOVO IN SERVIAN POETRY 313\n\n VIII. THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS\n OF THE CELTIC AND SLAVONIC HEROIC AGES 427\n\n ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA 464\n\n INDEX 469\n\n\n\n\nMAPS.\n\n\n CENTRAL EUROPE, ILLUSTRATING THE HEROIC AGE\n OF THE TEUTONIC PEOPLES _To face Title-page_\n\n GREECE, ILLUSTRATING THE CATALOGUE OF SHIPS }\n } _between pp._ 288\n GREECE, SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DIALECTS } _and_ 289\n IN HISTORICAL TIMES }\n\n TO\n\n JAMES RENDEL HARRIS\n\n IN GRATITUDE AND FRIENDSHIP\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE EARLY NARRATIVE POETRY OF THE TEUTONIC PEOPLES.\n\n\nThe remains of English poetry which have come down to us from times\nanterior to the Norman conquest are mainly of a religious character and\ndeal with the lives of saints or with subjects derived from the Bible\nor ecclesiastical tradition. The secular poems are comparatively few\nin number and, with one exception, of inconsiderable length. Most of\nthem are narrative poems, and admit of a very obvious classification\naccording to the choice of subjects with which they are concerned. One\ngroup deals with the exploits of English kings and noblemen of the\ntenth century, the other with the exploits and adventures of persons\nwho did not belong to this country. We will take the second group of\npoems first, as it is admitted by all authorities to be the earlier of\nthe two.\n\nThe longest poem of this class is Beowulf, an epic of 3183 verses, the\nsubject of which briefly is as follows: Hrothgar, king of the Danes,\nhas built a splendid hall, but is unable to enjoy the use of it on\naccount of the ravages of a monster named Grendel, who attacks the\nhall by night and devours all whom he finds there. Beowulf, a nephew\nof Hygelac, king of the Geatas, hearing of Hrothgar's distress comes\nto his help and destroys first the monster himself and then his mother\nwho had come to exact vengeance. He is thanked and rewarded for his\nexploits by Hrothgar, and returns to his own home. After this a long\nperiod is supposed to elapse. Hygelac has perished in an expedition\nagainst the Frisians, and his son Heardred has been slain by the\nSwedes. Beowulf has succeeded to the throne and reigned many years. In\nhis old age he resolves to attack a dragon which is ravaging the land,\nand in spite of the cowardice of his followers, of whom all except one\nforsake him, he eventually succeeds in destroying it, though not before\nhe has himself received a mortal wound. The poem ends with an account\nof his funeral.\n\nThe action is interrupted a good many times by references to incidents\nin the history of the royal families of the Danes and the Geatas,\nparticularly to Hygelac's fatal expedition and to the dealings of his\nfamily with the Swedish kings Ongentheow, Onela and Eadgils. We find\nalso a number of allusions to heroes of the past such as Sigemund,\nEormenric, Finn and Offa, who are known to us from other sources.\n\nTo the same class of poetry belong some fragments dealing with the\nstories of Finn and Waldhere. The fragment relating to Finn is very\nobscure and indeed would be quite unintelligible were it not for a\npassage in Beowulf (vv. 1068-1159) where the same story is introduced\nas the subject of a recitation by Hrothgar's minstrel. A certain Hnaef,\nrepresented as a vassal of Healfdene, Hrothgar's father, was slain in\na fortress belonging to Finn, king of the Frisians. His followers made\nso brave a defence that Finn was compelled to come to terms with them.\nSubsequently, when an opportunity presented itself they took vengeance\nupon Finn and slew him. The fragment gives an account of the fighting\nwhich took place, probably in the encounter immediately after Hnaef's\ndeath.\n\nThe story of Waldhere is well known from German sources which we\nshall have to mention presently. One of the fragments is taken up by\nan altercation between Waldhere and the Burgundian king Guthhere,\nbefore they begin to fight, while the other contains an exhortation to\nWaldhere by the lady to acquit himself bravely.\n\nWidsith, though not an epic poem itself, refers to a large number of\nthe characters which figure in Beowulf, Finn and Waldhere. It is stated\nthat the poet was in the service of a certain Eadgils, prince of the\nMyrgingas, and that in company with Ealhhild, apparently a princess of\nthe same family, he visited the court of the Gothic king Eormenric. The\ngreater part of the poem is taken up with lists of peoples which he\nhad visited and of famous princes whom he knew personally or by report.\n\nThe elegy of Deor consists of a number of brief notices of misfortunes\nwhich had befallen various persons, Weland and Beaduhild, Geat,\nTheodric and the subjects of Eormenric. Each notice ends with a refrain\nexpressing the belief or hope that the poet will be able to survive his\nmisfortunes as they did. At the end he says that he had been the bard\nof the Heodeningas, but that his office had been taken away from him\nand given to a skilful minstrel named Heorrenda.\n\nIn a later chapter we shall have to discuss the question when these\npoems were composed. At present it will be enough to remark that though\nthe MSS. in which they are preserved date only from the tenth or\neleventh centuries almost all scholars agree that the poems themselves\ncannot be later than the eighth century, while probably the majority\nwould refer their composition, in part at least to the seventh. In\ntheir present form they cannot be earlier than this, for with the\nexception of the Finn-fragment all of them contain Christian allusions.\n\nThe later group of secular narrative poems may best be described as\nhistorical. The earliest of them celebrates the battle of Brunanburh\nwon by Aethelstan in 937 over the Scottish king Constantine II and\nhis Scandinavian allies. Others describe Edmund's conquest of the\nFive Boroughs, the coronation of Edgar, the glories of his reign, the\ntroubles which followed, and lastly the death of Edward the Confessor.\nThe longest of all is a detailed account of the disastrous battle of\nMaldon, in which Byrhtnoth, earl of Essex, lost his life. All these\npieces except the last are found inserted in texts of the Saxon\nChronicle and all without exception appear to have been composed soon\nafter the events which they commemorate.\n\nIn addition to the above there are a number of other short poems which\nare not essentially of a religious character. The most important of\nthese are the Wanderer, the Wife's Complaint, the Husband's Message and\nthe Ruin--to which we may perhaps add the first half of the Seafarer.\nThey are probably all of fairly early date, but they differ from the\npoems we have been discussing in the fact that they contain no proper\nnames. Those of them which can be called narrative deal apparently\nwith typical characters or situations. A certain amount of magical and\ngnomic poetry has also survived, while metrical riddles are numerous,\nbut these need not concern us here.\n\nIt is scarcely open to doubt that a large amount of Anglo-Saxon\nnarrative poetry has perished. Several historical poems and ballads\nof the tenth and eleventh centuries, now lost, can be traced in texts\nof the Saxon Chronicle and in Latin works[1]. Attempts have been made\nalso to show that narrative poems were used by the compilers of the\nearly part of the Chronicle and by several Latin histories referring\nto the same period, but the evidence adduced is very doubtful. Perhaps\nthe most likely case is the story of Hengest and Horsa, especially\nin the form in which it appears in the Historia Brittonum. On the\nother hand it is probable that parts of the Vitae Duorum Offarum, a\nSt Albans work dating from the beginning of the thirteenth century,\nare derived ultimately from poems which described Offa's single combat\nand marriage--incidents to which we find brief references in Widsith\nand Beowulf respectively. A similar origin may perhaps be claimed for\nWalter Map's story (_De Nugis Curialium_, II 17) of Gado (Wada). A few\ncorrupt verses of a poem on this subject, obviously of late date, have\nbeen preserved in a Latin homily[2].\n\nThe earlier and later groups of narrative poems have in general[3] the\nsame metrical form and on the whole a very similar terminology. The\nlove of battle-scenes is also common to both. In other respects however\nthey differ greatly. Here we need only notice the entire difference\nin subject-matter; the poems of the second group contain no allusion\nto the subjects of the first. Much greater changes however, both in\nform and matter, are noticeable when English poetry reappears in the\nthirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The majority of these poems are\nof French origin. But even when the scene is laid in England, the\nsubjects are usually drawn from written sources--which is certainly\nnot the case with the historical poems of the tenth century. To the\nsubjects of the earlier group of Anglo-Saxon poems there is scarcely a\nreference.\n\nThe period of German literature which corresponds chronologically to\nthe Anglo-Saxon period in England is far inferior to the latter in\nremains of secular narrative poetry. We possess only one fragment of a\npoem somewhat similar to the Finn-fragment, preserved in a MS. dating\nfrom about 800, and one poem of somewhat later date, celebrating a\nvictory of Ludwig III, king of the West Franks. To these we may add\nthree or four very short metrical charms, similar to the Anglo-Saxon\nmagical pieces mentioned above.\n\nThe subject of the first of these poems is as follows: Hildebrand\n(_Hiltibrant_) is an old warrior who has left his country with Dietrich\n(_Theotrih_) and served with the Huns. On his return from exile, thirty\nyears later, he is challenged by a young warrior named Hadubrand. In\nthe altercation with which the piece opens Hildebrand discovers that\nhis opponent is his own son, acquaints him with the fact and tries to\ndissuade him from the combat with offers of rich presents. But the\nyoung man refuses to believe him, and taunts him with cowardice and\nguile in trying to put him off his guard. Hildebrand is therefore\nobliged to fight, and the fragment comes to an end in the midst of the\nencounter.\n\nThe Ludwigslied is a poem of fifty-nine verses celebrating the praises\nof Ludwig III, with special reference to his victory over the Northmen\nat Saucourt in 881, and seems to have been composed before the king's\ndeath in the following year. It is not in the old Teutonic alliterative\nmetre which we find in Anglo-Saxon poetry and in the Hildebrandslied,\nbut in the later rhyming verse. The religious element is prominent\nthroughout.\n\nThere is no doubt that a considerable amount of secular narrative\npoetry once existed in German. Einhard in his Life of Charlemagne\n(cap. 29) states that the emperor collected native and very ancient\npoems in which were related the deeds and battles of kings of former\ntimes[4]. But during the following centuries poetry of this kind seems\nto have gone entirely out of favour among the higher classes. We do\nindeed find occasional references to such poems in later Latin works.\nIn particular the Annals of Quedlinburg have incorporated from them a\nnumber of notices relating to Eormenric, Theodric (_Thideric de Berne_)\nand other heroes of antiquity. But here it is expressly stated that it\nwas among the peasants (_rustici_) that these poems were known. Other\nLatin chronicles cite lost poems relating to persons and events of the\ntenth century, which may have been somewhat similar to the contemporary\nAnglo-Saxon poems, though generally they appear to have been of a less\nserious character.\n\nSome compensation for the loss of early German poetry is afforded by\nthe preservation of a few Latin poems, of which the most important is\n_Waltharius manu fortis_, composed probably about 930 by Ekkehard of\nSt Gall. The subject is the same as that of the Anglo-Saxon Waldhere\nfragments. Waltharius and Hiltgund, the son and daughter respectively\nof two princes in Gaul, were betrothed in their childhood, but had\nto be given up as hostages to Attila, king of the Huns. After many\nyears they escaped and carried off with them much treasure. Hearing of\nthis, King Guntharius, who dwelt at Worms, determined to waylay them\nand set out with twelve warriors, among them the brave Hagano who had\nformerly shared Waltharius' exile. Waltharius is overtaken in a defile\nof the Vosges and slays eleven of the warriors in single combat. In\nhis final encounter with Hagano and Guntharius all three are crippled,\nbut Waltharius is able to make his way home with Hiltgund. There are\nother poems, one of which combines German with Latin in each verse,\ncelebrating the deeds of the contemporary Saxon emperors and their\nrelatives.\n\nThe second period of German literature, beginning in the twelfth\ncentury, is incomparably superior to the first in the amount of\nsecular narrative poetry which it has left behind. Here we need only\nconcern ourselves with those poems which draw their subjects from\nancient native traditions. These are mostly anonymous and come from the\nsouthern districts, especially Austria and Bavaria. Their metrical form\nis modern and similar to that of other poetry of the same period. The\nbest known of these poems is the Nibelungenlied, which dates from the\nbeginning of the thirteenth century. Only a very brief r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of its\ncontents can be given here.\n\nSiegfried (_S\u00eevrit_), the son of Siegmund, comes from Xanten to Worms\nand asks for the hand of Kriemhild, the sister of the Burgundian\nking Gunther. He joins Gunther in his campaigns and by magical arts\nenables him to win the amazon Br\u00fcnhild (_Pr\u00fcnhilt_) for his bride.\nThe two wives quarrel, and Br\u00fcnhild learns from Kriemhild of the part\nplayed by Siegfried towards her. On hearing this she begins to long\nfor his death, and eventually he is murdered at a hunting party by\nHagen (_Hagene_), the chief of Gunther's knights. Hagen also deprives\nKriemhild of Siegfried's treasure (_der Nibelunge hort_) and sinks it\nin the Rhine. Kriemhild is afterwards married to Etzel, king of the\nHuns and, burning for vengeance, persuades him to invite Gunther on a\nvisit, together with his brothers Gernot and Giselher and also Hagen.\nSoon after their arrival she brings about a quarrel, and after a huge\nslaughter on both sides, Gunther and Hagen, who have lost all their\nmen, are captured by Dietrich von Bern, Etzel's vassal. Kriemhild puts\nthem to death, violating the oath which she had given to spare them,\nand in anger at this treachery Hildebrand, Dietrich's old retainer,\nslays her.\n\nClosely connected in subject with the Nibelungenlied is the Klage,\nwhich describes the funeral of those slain in the fighting with Gunther\nand the lamentation over them. Here too we may notice the Seyfridslied,\nthough in the form in which it has come down to us it belongs to a\nmuch later period. In reality it is clearly a combination of two\ndifferent ballads, both of which deal with Siegfried's early years. The\nfirst relates how he was brought up by a smith and slew a dragon. The\nsecond gives an account of another similar adventure--this time with a\nfiery dragon which had carried off Kriemhild from her father's home.\nSiegfried kills the dragon and at the same time takes possession of the\ntreasure of certain dwarfs, the sons of Nybling.\n\nA number of other medieval poems deal with the adventures of Dietrich\nvon Bern and his knights. Alpharts Tod tells the story of the young\nknight Alphart, Hildebrand's nephew, and his encounter with two of\nErmenrich's warriors named Witege and Heime, by the former of whom\nhe was treacherously slain. Dietrichs Flucht relates how Ermenrich\n(_Ermrich_) was instigated by an evil counseller named Sibeche to plot\ndestruction for his nephew Dietrich. Though the plot fails, Hildebrand\nand several of Dietrich's other knights are captured and imprisoned,\nand in order to obtain their release Dietrich is forced to go into\nexile. In the Rabenschlacht we are told how Dietrich with the help\nof Etzel set out to recover his inheritance. While he is engaged in\nbattle with Ermenrich, his brother Diether and two young sons of Etzel\nare slain by Witege. Dietrich rides after Witege to exact vengeance,\nbut Witege disappears in the sea. Virginal describes how Dietrich\nwas imprisoned by a giant in a castle called Muter and rescued by\nHildebrand, Witege, Heime and others. Further adventures with giants\nand dwarfs are related in the Eckenlied, Sigenot and Laurin. In the\nRosengarten Dietrich is made to fight with Siegfried.\n\nThe story of Wolfdietrich and Ortnit has come down to us in several\ndifferent forms, but the outline may be given briefly as follows.\nWolfdietrich, the son of king Hugdietrich, is kept out of his\ninheritance by his brothers or their guardian Saben on the ground of\nillegitimacy. He betakes himself to a faithful old knight, Berchtung of\nMeran, who raises an army to help him. But in the battle that ensues\nBerchtung and his sons are all slain or captured, and Wolfdietrich has\nto go into exile. He then marries the widow of a king named Ortnit and\ndestroys the dragon which had killed him. Eventually he succeeds in\nwinning his father's kingdom and releasing his faithful followers. Some\nelements of this story appear to have been incorporated in the romance\nof King Rother.\n\nThe story of the poem K\u00fbdr\u00fbn falls naturally into two parts. In the\nfirst Hetel (_Hetele_), king of Denmark, hears of Hilde, a princess of\nIreland and desires to marry her. As her father, the fierce Hagen, will\nnot consent, Hetel's warriors Wate, Fruote and H\u00f4rand carry her off.\nHagen pursues them to Denmark, but in the fight which follows he is\nnearly killed by Wate. Finally a reconciliation takes place and Hilde\nis allowed to marry Hetel. In the second part Hartmuot and Herwig are\nsuitors for K\u00fbdr\u00fbn, the daughter of Hetel and Hilde. The latter is at\nlength accepted, but K\u00fbdr\u00fbn is carried off by Hartmuot and his father\nLudwig (_Ludew\u00eec_). A pursuit follows and Hetel is killed by Ludwig.\nK\u00fbdr\u00fbn is kept at Hartmuot's home for seven years, harshly treated by\nhis mother Gerlind, because she will not consent to become his wife. At\nlast Herwig and her brother Ortw\u00een with the warriors Wate, Fruote and\nH\u00f4rand come and rescue her. Ludwig is killed but Hartmuot is spared at\nK\u00fbdr\u00fbn's intercession.\n\nIn conclusion mention must be made of some fragments of a poem dealing\nwith Walther and Hildegund. The subject seems to have been identical\nwith that of Ekkehard's Waltharius. Reminiscences of other ancient\nstories are occasionally to be found in poems of a romantic character.\nAmong these we may note especially the poem Herzog Friedrich von\nSchwaben, a portion of which seems to be derived from the story of\nWeland.\n\nThe North German dialects have no poetry of this type, except a few\nballads dating from much later times, of which the most important is\none on Eormenric's death. But a great mass of legend, derived chiefly\nfrom North German sources, is preserved in the Norse work Thi\u00f0reks\nSaga af Bern, which dates from about the middle of the thirteenth\ncentury. The characters are for the most part identical with those\nwhich figure in the High German epics, Dietrich von Bern, Ermenrich,\nWitege, Walther, Siegfried etc. Traces of poems of much earlier date\nhave been sought in several Latin chronicles. Besides the references in\nthe Annals of Quedlinburg, to which we have already alluded, mention\nmay be made of the Saxon stories given by Widukind and the Translatio\nS. Alexandri, especially that of the victory over the Thuringian king\nIrminfrith.\n\nThe vernacular poetry of the Langobardi has entirely perished, but a\nnumber of stories given by the Latin historians are thought to be\nbased on early poems. The first and most striking of these is the\naccount of the battle with the Vandals, in which the two armies appeal\nfor victory to Wodan and Fria respectively[5]. A similar origin has\nbeen claimed for several other narratives, such as that of Alboin's\nvisit to Turisind, king of the Gepidae, and more especially the story\nof Authari and Theudelinda[6].\n\nThe Gothic historian Jordanes states (cap. 5) that his compatriots\nwere wont to celebrate the deeds of their famous men in poetry, and it\nis probable that many of the legends which he gives were ultimately\nderived from such poems. Among them we may include not only the story\nof Filimer and the migration to the Black Sea (cap. 4)--in which\ncase ancient poems are expressly mentioned--but also perhaps that of\nthe first migration under Berig (_ib._) and some part of the account\nof Ostrogotha (cap. 16 f.), as well as the incidental reference to\nVidigoia's death (cap. 34). In the story of Hermanaricus also several\nincidents, notably the death of Sunilda and the vengeance subsequently\nexacted by her brothers Sarus and Ammius (cap. 24), suggest a tradition\npreserved in poetic form.\n\nNo Scandinavian country except Iceland[7] has preserved any early poems\nin its native language. The ancient literature of Iceland however\nis peculiarly rich in secular narrative poetry. Moreover though the\nearliest of these poems are probably quite two centuries later than\nBeowulf, they are entirely free from Christian influence. Indeed it\ncan hardly be doubted that a considerable proportion of them date from\nheathen times.\n\nIt will be convenient to begin with the collection of poems usually\nknown as the Older Edda. These are all anonymous; but most of them are\ngenerally believed to belong to the tenth century, while a few may\nreally have been composed in Norway at a still earlier date. Eleven of\nthese poems deal exclusively, or almost exclusively, with gods, giants\nand other supernatural beings, and hence stand quite apart from the\nclass of poetry with which we are concerned. But since we shall have to\nrefer to them occasionally in the following pages it will be convenient\nhere to give a brief synopsis of their contents.\n\nV\u00f6lusp\u00e1 is a mythological poem in the form of a speech delivered to the\ngod Othin by a sibyl whom he is consulting. It deals with the origin\nof the world, the history of the gods and their coming fate. H\u00e1vam\u00e1l\nis a collection of proverbial wisdom and moral precepts of the heathen\nage, with occasional references to myth and ritual. Vaf\u00fer\u00fa\u00f0nism\u00e1l\ndescribes how Othin visited the giant Vaf\u00fer\u00fa\u00f0nir and entered into\na contest with him in mythological lore. The subject of Gr\u00edmnism\u00e1l\nis a visit paid by Othin in disguise to a king named Geirr\u00f6\u00f0r, who\ntortures him. Othin gives a long discourse on mythological matters\nand finally reveals himself, whereupon the king stumbles over his\nsword and dies. Sk\u00edrnism\u00e1l relates how Sk\u00edrnir, the servant of the\ngod Frey, was sent to obtain for his master the hand of the giantess\nGer\u00f0r, of whom he had become passionately enamoured. H\u00e1rbar\u00f0sli\u00f3\u00f0 is\ntaken up with an altercation between the god Thor and a ferryman called\nH\u00e1rbar\u00f0r (generally supposed to be Othin), who refuses to take him over\na strait. H\u00fdmiskvi\u00f0a gives an account of Thor's adventures when he\nwent to visit the giant H\u00fdmir. Lokasenna is occupied with a number of\nscandalous charges brought by Loki against various gods and goddesses\nwho have been invited to a feast by Aegir. Thrymskvi\u00f0a relates how the\ngiant Thrymr, having obtained possession of Thor's hammer, demanded\nthe goddess Freyia as his bride, and how Thor came disguised as Freyia\nand slew the giant. Alv\u00edssm\u00e1l is a dialogue between Thor and the dwarf\nAlv\u00edss, who is a suitor for his daughter. Thor detains the dwarf with\nquestions on the various names of natural objects and phenomena until\nthe fatal moment of daybreak. Vegtamskvi\u00f0a describes how Othin went to\nconsult a sibyl on the impending fate of Balder.\n\nIn addition to these pieces, all of which probably come from one\ncollection, there are two semi-mythical poems contained in other\nworks. R\u00edgsm\u00e1l or R\u00edgs\u00feula relates how a certain R\u00edgr (identified in\nthe introduction with the god Heimdallr) became the progenitor of\nthe three classes of men--the characteristics of which are described\nat length. Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0 is mainly a genealogical poem, narrating how\nFreyia went to consult the giantess Hyndla as to the ancestry of her\ndevotee, \u00d3ttarr the son of Innsteinn. It contains also some purely\nmythological matter which is generally supposed to have come from a\nseparate poem. Here also we may mention two pieces known as Gr\u00f3galdr\nand Fi\u00f6lsvinnsm\u00e1l, which clearly belong together. In the former\nSvipdagr calls up the spirit of Gr\u00f3a, his mother; in the latter he\ncomes to the enchanted abode of Mengl\u00f6\u00f0 and, after many questions with\nthe gatekeeper, is at length recognised as her destined lover. In much\nlater times we find Swedish and Danish versions of the same story, and\nthere can be little doubt that it is really a folk-tale.\n\nThe purely mythological poems of the Edda are followed by\nV\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a, which gives a fairly full account of the story of\nV\u00f6lundr (Weland). It describes how V\u00f6lundr and his brothers obtained\nas their wives three swan-maidens, who after eight years deserted\nthem. Then V\u00f6lundr is captured by a king named N\u00ed\u00f0u\u00f0r, hamstrung and\ncompelled to work as his smith. V\u00f6lundr executes vengeance on the\nking's sons and daughter (B\u00f6\u00f0vildr) and then flies away.\n\nThe next poem, Helgakvi\u00f0a Hi\u00f6rvar\u00f0ssonar, gives in dialogue form a\nsomewhat complicated story of the adventures of a king named Hi\u00f6rvar\u00f0r\nand his son Helgi. A different Helgi, the son of Sigmundr, is the\nsubject of the two following poems, Helgakvi\u00f0ur Hundingsbana. Both\npoems relate how the hero overthrew a king named Hundingr and how he\nwas afterwards summoned by Sigr\u00fan, the daughter of H\u00f6gni, to save her\nfrom marriage to a prince named H\u00f6\u00f0broddr, whom she detested. The first\npoem ends with Helgi's victory over H\u00f6gni and H\u00f6\u00f0broddr; but the second\ngoes on to describe how Dagr, the son of H\u00f6gni, subsequently slew Helgi\nin revenge for his father. Sinfi\u00f6tli, the son of Sigmundr, figures in\nboth poems, but Sigur\u00f0r is not mentioned.\n\nThe next poem, Gr\u00edpissp\u00e1, probably a late work, gives a summary of the\nadventures of Sigur\u00f0r, the son of Sigmundr, in the form of a dialogue\nbetween the hero and his uncle Gr\u00edpir, who is endowed with prophecy.\nThis is followed by three pieces which may really be parts of one\noriginal poem. The first (commonly called Reginsm\u00e1l) relates how three\nof the gods, Othin, Hoenir and Loki, killed a certain Otr, the son of\nHrei\u00f0marr. Having to pay compensation to the father, Loki robbed a\ndwarf, named Andvari, of his gold. Andvari laid a curse on the gold,\nand Hrei\u00f0marr was soon killed by his own son F\u00e1fnir, who subsequently\nturned into a serpent.[8] Reginn, F\u00e1fnir's brother, betook himself to\nSigur\u00f0r and became his attendant. The poem then goes on to describe\nhow a certain Hnikarr (Othin) guided Sigur\u00f0r on an expedition he\nundertook against the sons of Hundingr. In the next piece (F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l)\nSigur\u00f0r at Reginn's instigation attacks and kills F\u00e1fnir. Then, finding\nthat Reginn is plotting treachery, he slays him also and carries off\nF\u00e1fnir's gold. In the third (Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l) Sigur\u00f0r finds and wakens a\nmaid named Sigrdr\u00edfa, a valkyrie who has been punished by Othin with an\nenchanted sleep. She imparts to him much magical lore; but the close of\nthe poem is lost owing to a lacuna in the MS.\n\nOf the following nine poems six--Sigur\u00f0arkvi\u00f0a I (a fragment),\nGu\u00f0r\u00fanarkvi\u00f0a I, Sigur\u00f0arkvi\u00f0a II (_hin skamma_), Gu\u00f0r\u00fanarkvi\u00f0a II\n(_hin forna_), Atlakvi\u00f0a and Atlam\u00e1l--deal with practically the same\nevents as the Nibelungenlied. But unfortunately, owing to the lacuna in\nthe MS. several poems at the beginning of the series have been lost.\nHence in order to obtain a full account of the story it is necessary to\nrefer to the V\u00f6lsunga Saga (see below), which used the lost poems as\nwell as the others.\n\nThe chief variations from the German version of the story are as\nfollows: (i) Sigmundr has been killed before the birth of Sigur\u00f0r\n(Siegfried) by the sons of Hundingr. (ii) The wife of Sigur\u00f0r is called\nGu\u00f0r\u00fan, Gr\u00edmhildr being the name of her mother and Gi\u00faki that of her\nfather. (iii) Brynhildr is the sister of Atli (Etzel). In several\nauthorities[9] she is identified with the valkyrie of Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l,\nand it is stated that she and Sigur\u00f0r had exchanged vows of love; but\nSigur\u00f0r's love was subsequently turned to Gu\u00f0r\u00fan through a magic potion\ngiven him by Gr\u00edmhildr. (iv) H\u00f6gni (Hagen) is the brother of Gunnarr\n(Gunther); and in place of Gern\u00f4t and G\u00eeselher there is another brother\nnamed Guthormr. It is the last-named who actually kills Sigur\u00f0r, and\nhe is himself killed by the dying man. Brynhildr then puts herself to\ndeath and is burned with Sigur\u00f0r. (v) The death of Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni\nis attributed to Atli. Gu\u00f0r\u00fan on the other hand warns her brothers of\nthe treachery awaiting them, and subsequently avenges their deaths by\nkilling Atli and the children he had had by her.\n\nInterspersed among these poems are three others connected with\nthe same story, but dealing with incidents unknown to the German\nversion. The Helrei\u00f0 Brynhildar describes how Brynhildr on her way\nto Hell encounters a giantess, to whom she tells the story of her\nlife. Gu\u00f0r\u00fanarkvi\u00f0a III relates how Gu\u00f0r\u00fan was accused to Atli of\nadultery with Thi\u00f3\u00f0rekr, but established her innocence by the ordeal.\nIn Oddr\u00fanargr\u00e1tr a sister of Atli named Oddr\u00fan comes to Borgn\u00fd, the\ndaughter of a certain Hei\u00f0rekr, to relieve her in her travail, and\ngives an account of the relations between herself, Brynhildr and\nGunnarr.\n\nThe last two poems--Gu\u00f0r\u00fanarhv\u00f6t and Ham\u00f0ism\u00e1l--are concerned with\nthe story of the attack upon I\u00f6rmunrekr (Hermanaricus), to Jordanes'\naccount of which we have already alluded (p. 10). Here the story is\nconnected with the preceding poems[10] by the fact that Svanhildr\n(Sunilda) is represented as the daughter of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan and Sigur\u00f0r, while\nHam\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli (Ammius and Sarus) are said to be the sons of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan\nand a certain I\u00f3nakr, whom she had married after Atli's death. In the\nfirst poem Gu\u00f0r\u00fan incites her sons to avenge their sister and then\nbewails her many misfortunes. The second describes the actual fighting,\npreceded however by the account of a quarrel in which Erpr, a stepson\nof Gu\u00f0r\u00fan, is killed by his half-brothers. To his death is attributed\nthe fact that I\u00f6rmunrekr, was able to survive the onslaught, though he\nlost both hands and both feet.\n\nThe prose Edda (Skaldskaparm\u00e1l, cap. 43) contains a poem, Grottas\u00f6ngr,\nwhich gives the story of two giant maidens who had to grind gold and\npeace for the Danish king Fr\u00f3\u00f0i. At the end there is an allusion to\nHalfdan and Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki (see below). Besides this we have, both in\nthe prose Edda and elsewhere, a number of fragments of poems, some\nof which refer to Sigur\u00f0r and his family and some to other stories.\nAmong the latter mention may be made especially of a poem Biarkam\u00e1l,\nwhich celebrated the achievements of the Danish king Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki and\nthe heroism of his retinue in the battle wherein he lost his life. In\nHervarar Saga large portions of an early poem relating to the Goths and\nHuns have been preserved.\n\nIn addition to the poems enumerated above, all of which are anonymous,\nwe have also a number of works by known poets. Most of these deal\neither wholly or in part with contemporary persons and events. The\nearliest date from the ninth century and are of Norwegian origin.\nProbably the oldest of all are the fragments of Bragi Boddason, the\nchief of which is a description of his shield (Ragnarsdr\u00e1pa). From\nthe reign of Harold the Fair-haired several poems are known, though\nnearly all of them are in a very fragmentary condition. Among them\nmay be mentioned especially the Ynglingatal of Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr of Hv\u00edn, a\ngenealogical poem which traces the descent of R\u00f6gnvaldr, a cousin\nof Harold, from the ancient kings of the Swedes and the god Frey.\nAnother famous work by the same poet was the Haustl\u00f6ng, which dealt\nwith mythological subjects. Next perhaps in importance to Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr\nwas Th\u00f3rbi\u00f6rn Hornklofi, from whom we have fragments of two poems\n(Hrafnsm\u00e1l and Glymdr\u00e1pa), celebrating the exploits of Harold. Somewhat\nlater we hear of a poet named Go\u00f0\u00f0ormr Sindri, who is known chiefly\nfrom the remains of a work (H\u00e1konardr\u00e1pa) in honour of Haakon I. A\nfamous fragment (Eireksm\u00e1l) by an unknown poet, dating from shortly\nafter the middle of the tenth century, celebrates the death of King\nEir\u00edkr Bl\u00f3\u00f0\u00f6x and his reception by Othin in Valhalla. From this is\ncopied the H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l of Eyvindr Skaldaspillir, celebrating the death\nof Haakon I at the battle of Fitje (A.D. 961). The same poet also\ncomposed a genealogical poem (H\u00e1leygiatal) in imitation of Ynglingatal.\nIn it he traced the ancestry of Haakon, earl of Lade, who ruled Norway\nfrom about 975 to 995, back through the kings of H\u00e1logaland to Othin\nand Ska\u00f0i.\n\nFrom this time onwards the cultivation of poetry seems to have been\nalmost entirely limited to Icelanders, many of whom resided largely\nat the courts of various Scandinavian kings. Among them the most\nnoteworthy and almost the earliest was Egill Skallagr\u00edmsson, who\nlived from about 900 to 982. He is known chiefly from the H\u00f6fu\u00f0lausn,\ncomposed for Eir\u00edkr Bl\u00f3\u00f0\u00f6x in England, the Arinbiarnardr\u00e1pa, in honour\nof his friend Arinbi\u00f6rn, and the Sonatorrek, an elegy over one of his\nsons. Of his younger contemporaries perhaps the best known are Kormakr\n\u00d6gmundarson and Einarr Helgason. The latter is famous chiefly for his\npoem Vellekla, in which he celebrated the exploits of Earl Haakon.\nMany other distinguished poets flourished during the following half\ncentury--down to the time of Harold III (Har\u00f0r\u00e1\u00f0i)--but it is not\nnecessary here to discuss their works.\n\nBy the time of Harold III the composition of prose narratives or sagas\n(s\u00f6gur) had already begun to be cultivated by Icelanders, though it\nwas not until towards the end of the following century that they were\nfirst committed to writing. Many sagas are based on old narrative\npoems; as for instance Ynglinga Saga, which is largely a paraphrase and\nexpansion of Ynglingatal. V\u00f6lsunga Saga, which gives the stories of\nHelgi, Sigur\u00f0r, Gu\u00f0r\u00fan and Svanhildr, is derived mainly from the poems\nof the Edda, though it has used other materials. The earlier part,\ndealing with Sigmundr and his ancestors seems to have drawn upon some\nlost poems. In S\u00f6rla Th\u00e1ttr[11] we meet with a story--found also in the\nprose Edda (Skaldsk. 50) and alluded to in Bragi's Ragnarsdr\u00e1pa--which\nis clearly connected with that of the first part of the German poem\nK\u00fbdr\u00fbn. Hildr, the daughter of H\u00f6gni, is carried off in her father's\nabsence by his friend He\u00f0inn. They are overtaken and a battle follows,\nin which all the combatants are killed. Hildr by magic spells rouses\nthe slain each night to renew the battle. In Hr\u00f3lfs Saga Kraka we have\nan account of the Danish kings Helgi and Hr\u00f3arr, the sons of Halfdan,\nand of Helgi's son, Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki, which seems to be derived ultimately\nfrom old poems like Biarkam\u00e1l. Certain incidents in the story, such\nas Hr\u00f3lfr's dealings with the Swedish king A\u00f0ils, are related also in\nother sagas. The same characters figured prominently in Ski\u00f6ldunga\nSaga, of which we have little except an abridged Latin translation.\nThis saga also related at length the stories of Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn,\nSigur\u00f0r Hringr and Ragnarr Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k, parts of which are known also from\nother sources, especially Ragnars Saga Lo\u00f0br\u00f3kar and the Th\u00e1ttr af\nLo\u00f0br\u00f3kar sonum.\n\nAmong Latin authorities the most important is the great Danish History\n(_Gesta Danorum_) of Saxo Grammaticus, which dates from the end of\nthe twelfth century and contains metrical translations or paraphrases\nof many old poems. Of these perhaps the most noteworthy are the\nBiarkam\u00e1l and some of the poems attributed to Starka\u00f0r (Starcatherus),\nparticularly those addressed to Ingialdr (Ingellus). Here also we find\na detailed account of the tragic story of Hagbar\u00f0r and Sign\u00fd, which is\nvery frequently alluded to in Old Norse poetry. Hagbar\u00f0r belonged to a\nfamily which was involved in vendetta with the Danish king Sigarr. But\nhaving fallen in love with Sign\u00fd, the king's daughter, he visited her\ndisguised as a woman--an adventure which ended in his being discovered\nand condemned to death. Sign\u00fd and all her maidens destroyed themselves\nwhen he was led to the gallows. Many other stories are given entirely\nin prose, among them those of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni, I\u00f6rmunrekr and Helgi\nHundingsbani, though no mention is made of Sigmundr or Sigur\u00f0r. The\nadventures also of Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn and Ragnarr Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k are related\nat considerable length. Lastly, we may mention a story which is not\nrecorded by any Icelandic authority, namely that of the single combat\nfought by Uffo the son of Wermundus. It deserves notice here on account\nof its obvious identity with the English story of Offa.\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have reviewed briefly the secular\nnarrative poetry produced by the various Teutonic peoples down to the\nend of the tenth century. In the case of works by historical Norwegian\nand Icelandic poets, owing to the abundance of material, we have\nrestricted ourselves to mentioning only the leading names. Elsewhere we\nhave endeavoured to give a more or less complete summary. On the other\nhand, among works dating from later than the tenth century, we have\ntaken into consideration only those which are concerned with stories\nof ancient times. The stories themselves will be discussed in the\nfollowing chapters.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Cf. Brandl in Paul's _Grundriss d. germ. Philol._\u00b2, II pp. 1083\nff., 1087 f.\n\n[2] Academy, 1896, I 137; cf. Brandl, _op. cit._, p. 1085.\n\n[3] This remark applies more especially to the poems on Brunanburh and\nMaldon in the later group.\n\n[4] Saxo Poeta, who wrote about 890, speaks of _uulgaria carmina_ which\ncelebrated _Pippinos Carolos Hludowicos et Theodricos et Carlomannos\nHlothariosque_ (Mon. Germ., Script. I 268). But it is usually held that\nthese words are due to a mistaken inference from Einhard, whose work he\nwas using.\n\n[5] Origo Gentis Langobardorum (Mon. Germ., Script. Rerum Langobard.,\np. 2 f.); Paulus Diaconus, _Hist. Lang._ I 8.\n\n[6] Cf. K\u00f6gel, _Geschichte d. deutschen Litteratur_, I p. 115 ff.\n\n[7] The poems were not all composed in Iceland. Many of the earliest\ndoubtless came from Norway, others perhaps from the British Isles,\nwhile others again are referred to Greenland.\n\n[8] Called a dragon (_dreki_) in V\u00f6lsunga Saga.\n\n[9] Helrei\u00f0 Brynh. (str. 7 ff.) and the prose versions (Skaldsk.\n41, V\u00f6ls. S. 20). It is a much debated question whether the two are\nidentified also in F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l, str. 40 ff. In Gr\u00edpissp\u00e1 they seem\nclearly to be separated.\n\n[10] The death of Svanhildr is mentioned also in Sigur\u00f0arkvi\u00f0a II,\nwhere it is attributed (as in the prose authorities) to the evil\ncounsel of a certain Bikki, an adviser of I\u00f6rmunrekr.\n\n[11] Fornaldar S\u00f6gur Nor\u00f0rlanda, I p. 391 ff.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE HEROIC AGE OF THE TEUTONIC PEOPLES.\n\n\nIt will not have escaped notice that a large proportion of the stories\ndescribed or alluded to in the preceding chapter are found in the\nliterature of more than one nation. The most casual reader could not\nfail to observe the identity of the story of Sigur\u00f0r and Gu\u00f0r\u00fan,\nas given in the Edda and V\u00f6lsunga Saga, with that of Siegfried and\nKriemhild related in the Nibelungenlied. Equally obvious is the\nconnection between the story of I\u00f6rmunrekr and Svanhildr in the same\nScandinavian authorities and that of Hermanaricus and Sunilda given by\nJordanes. A still closer resemblance is furnished by the Anglo-Saxon\npoem Waldhere and the German-Latin Waltharius. The connection between\nthe German poem K\u00fbdr\u00fbn and the Scandinavian story of He\u00f0inn and\nH\u00f6gni is perhaps less striking, but not open to question. The brief\nreferences to the story of Weland and Beaduhild in the Anglo-Saxon poem\nDeor are quite sufficient to prove its substantial identity with that\ntold in V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a.\n\nIn other cases the same characters appear, though the incidents\nrelated are different. Eormenric (Ermenrich) is a prominent figure in\nAnglo-Saxon and German poetry, as well as in Scandinavian and Gothic\nrecords. The Wudga and Hama of Widsith (Waldhere and Beowulf) and the\nTheodric of Waldhere are clearly identical with the Witege, Heime and\nDietrich von Bern of the German epics, while Theodric figures also,\nthough not prominently, in the Edda. Of all the Edda poems[12] those\nwhich show the least connection with non-Scandinavian poetry are the\nthree Helgakvi\u00f0ur. Yet Sinfi\u00f6tli, as well as Sigmundr, is mentioned in\nBeowulf (under the form Fitela) and there are traces that his name was\nonce known in Germany.\n\nWe may observe that in Beowulf it is only the persons mentioned in\ncasual references and in episodes lying outside the main action of\nthe story, such as Sigemund, Eormenric, Hama and Weland, to whom we\nfind allusions in German poetry. On the other hand most of the chief\ncharacters of the poem are well known from Scandinavian records,\nthough not in connection with precisely the same incidents. There is\nno doubt as to the identity of the Danish kings Healfdene, his sons\nHrothgar and Halga, and Hrothwulf the nephew and colleague of Hrothgar,\nwith Halfdan, his sons Hr\u00f3arr and Helgi and Helgi's son, the famous\nHr\u00f3lfr Kraki--all likewise kings of the Danes. Equally obvious is the\nidentity of the Swedish prince Eadgils the son of Ohthere with A\u00f0ils\nthe son of \u00d3ttarr in Ynglingatal, while his uncle and opponent Onela\nis clearly the same person as A\u00f0ils' opponent \u00c1li, although the latter\nis represented as a Norwegian in Old Norse literature. Further, the\nepisode in which Ingeld is incited by an old warrior to avenge his\nfather Froda is evidently to be connected with certain poems given by\nSaxo, in which the old warrior Starcatherus rouses Ingellus to avenge\nhis father Frotho. Among other persons mentioned in the poem Scyld is\ndoubtless to be identified with the Ski\u00f6ldr of Scandinavian tradition;\nprobably also Heremod with the Herm\u00f3\u00f0r of Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0 and Weoxtan with\nthe V\u00e9steinn of the Kalfsv\u00edsa[13]. To the identification of Beowulf\nhimself with the Biarki of Scandinavian tradition, which is doubted by\nsome scholars, we shall have to return later.\n\nThe characters of the Finn fragment are much less easy to trace\nelsewhere. Two of Hnaef's warriors named Ordlaf and Guthlaf are\nprobably to be identified with two Danish princes, Oddlevus and\nGunnlevus, mentioned in Ski\u00f6ldunga Saga; but there is nothing to show\nthat Sigeferth is identical with Sigur\u00f0r the son of Sigmundr. In\nWidsith however we find a large number of persons who are well known\nfrom Continental and Scandinavian authorities. Besides Eormenric,\nWudga, Hama, Offa, Hrothgar, Hrothwulf and Ingeld, of whom we have\nalready spoken, we hear of Aetla, king of the Huns (Atli, Etzel),\nGuthhere and Gifeca, kings of the Burgundians (i.e. the Gunnarr and\nGi\u00faki of the Edda), and Sigehere, king of the Danes (i.e. probably\nSigarr, the father of Sign\u00fd), as well as the Goths Eastgota the father\nof Unwine (i.e. Jordanes' Ostrogotha the father of Hunwil), Becca\n(probably Bikki, the evil counsellor of I\u00f6rmunrekr) and the Herelingas,\nEmerca and Fridla, who are doubtless to be identified with the\nEmbrica and Fritla, nephews of Eormenric, mentioned in the Annals of\nQuedlinburg and elsewhere. It is more than probable also that in v. 21:\n\"Hagena ruled the Holmryge and Heoden (MS. _Henden_) the Glommas,\" we\nhave an allusion to the story of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni (the Hetel and Hagen\nof K\u00fbdr\u00fbn). We may compare a passage of Deor (v. 35 ff.) which tells of\na skilful minstrel of the Heodeningas named Heorrenda, presumably the\nH\u00f4rand of the German poem.\n\nThese instances, though far from exhaustive, will be sufficient to show\nthat the same characters recur again and again in the early narrative\npoetry of the various Teutonic peoples. In the last nineteen poems of\nthe Older Edda (viz. those which deal with human beings) there is but\none (Helgakvi\u00f0a Hi\u00f6rvar\u00f0ssonar) which introduces no characters known\nelsewhere. Among the early Anglo-Saxon poems treated on p. 1 ff. we\nfind no such case, and the same is probably true of the German poems\ndiscussed on pp. 5, 7 ff. With the later Anglo-Saxon poems (p. 3) and\nthe German historical poems of the ninth and following centuries the\ncase is quite otherwise. The exploits of Aethelstan and Byrhtnoth are\ncelebrated only in English poems, those of Ludwig III and other German\nprinces only in the poetry of their own country. So also with the\nskaldic poems of the North. If these introduce any personal names known\nin the poetry of England or Germany they are names, like Sigmundr and\nHerm\u00f3\u00f0r, derived from earlier poems and not belonging to contemporary\npersons. Similarly neither English nor German poetry celebrates the\ndeeds of Eir\u00edkr Bl\u00f3\u00f0\u00f6x or Haakon the Good.\n\nThe phenomena noted above seem to indicate that the poetic cycles with\nwhich we have been dealing have a common origin or at least that there\nwas a considerable amount of borrowing between poets of different\nnations. In order however to be able to form an opinion on this point\nit is necessary first to consider the following questions: (i) how\nfar the characters and incidents of these poems are to be regarded as\nhistorical, (ii) to what period or periods of history they belong.\nWe may note in passing that no doubt need be entertained as to the\nhistorical basis of the later group of Anglo-Saxon poems, of German\npoems such as the Ludwigslied or of the Northern skaldic poems--however\nmuch the true facts may be obscured by poetic embellishments.\n\nIt is clear enough that some of the characters of the common cycles\nare historical persons. Thus there can be no doubt that Aetla (Atli,\nEtzel), king of the Huns, is the famous Hunnish king Attila who died in\n453. Again the Burgundian king Guthhere (Gunnarr, Gunther), who plays\nso prominent a part in the stories of Waldhere and Sigur\u00f0r-Siegfried,\nis clearly identical with the historical Burgundian king Gundicarius\n(Gundaharius), whose defeat in 435 by the Roman general Aetius is\nrecorded by contemporary writers. Of his end Prosper says only that the\nHuns destroyed him together with his family and nation[14], and some\nscholars have denied that Attila had any part in this event[15]. But\nour knowledge of the course of events on or beyond the Roman frontier\nat this period is too slight to justify any confident statement on such\na point. Of the other members of the Burgundian royal family Gifeca\n(Gi\u00faki) and Gislhere (Giselher) are mentioned in the laws of King\nGundobad who died in the year 516[16].\n\nThe Gothic king Eormenric (Hermanaricus, I\u00f6rmunrekr) is another\ndoubtless historical character. The account of him given by Jordanes\nseems indeed to be derived from tradition, handed down probably in\npoetic form; but the statement that he took his own life through fear\nof the Huns is confirmed by the strictly contemporary writer Ammianus\nMarcellinus (xxxi. 3. 1), from whom we gather that the event took place\nshortly after 370. He also states that Eormenric was a most warlike\nking and feared by the surrounding nations on account of his many brave\ndeeds.\n\nIn Dietrich von Bern (the Theodric of Waldhere and the Thi\u00f3\u00f0rekr of the\nEdda) we certainly have reminiscences of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric\nwho ruled Italy from 489 to 526. The statement in the Hildebrandslied\nthat he fled from the hostility of Ottachar and the story of the\nRabenschlacht recall his campaigns with Odoacer, which culminated in\nthe surrender of Ravenna in 493. But it cannot possibly be true that\nhe was present at Attila's court, where we find him in the Edda and in\nGerman poetry, much less that he had any dealings with Eormenric. The\nformer mistake is generally attributed to confusion between Dietrich\nand his father Dietmar (Thiudemer), who is known to have been with\nAttila. The other error however is more difficult to account for and\nwill require to be discussed later.\n\nIt is commonly held that in the poems dealing with Wolfdietrich[17] the\nhero and his father Hugdietrich represent a confusion of the Frankish\nkings Theodberht (r. 534-548) and his father Theodric I (r. 511-534).\nIn this case however it must be confessed that the resemblances are\nextremely slight. The application of the name Hugo Theodoricus to\nTheodric I in the Annals of Quedlinburg cannot at best prove more than\nthat the chronicler identified the two.\n\nThe identification of characters which figure in stories relating to\nthe northern kingdoms is naturally more difficult, since references to\nsuch persons by contemporary Roman historians are extremely rare. One\nsafe instance however is furnished by the incident, referred to several\ntimes in Beowulf, of Hygelac's disastrous expedition against the Franks\nand Frisians. Gregory of Tours (III 3) and the Gesta Francorum (cap.\n19) mention a very serious raid on the lower Rhine by a king of the\nDanes named Chocilaicus, which ended in his defeat and death through\nthe arrival of an army under Theodberht. The Liber Monstrorum (I, cap.\n3[18]), a work of perhaps the seventh century, states that the bones of\na certain _Getarum rex Huiglaucus_, who had been slain by the Franks,\nwere preserved on an island at the mouth of the Rhine. There can be no\nquestion that the person referred to in these passages is the Hygelac\nof Beowulf. The date of the expedition, though not precisely fixed by\nany authority, may safely be placed within a few years of 520.\n\nMost of the Danish and Swedish princes common to Beowulf and the\nNorthern authorities are now generally regarded as historical\ncharacters, though we have no reference to them in contemporary\ndocuments. It is to be noted in the first place that though the persons\nthemselves are common to the two traditions, English and Northern, they\nare not as a rule mentioned in connection with the same incidents.\nFurther, there is no evidence for communication between England and\nthe Baltic during the seventh and eighth centuries. This renders it\nprobable that the two records go back independently to a time at which\npersons who remembered Hygelac's younger contemporaries might still be\nalive.\n\nLastly a few words must be said with regard to the stories of Haraldr\nHildit\u00f6nn, Sigur\u00f0r Hringr and Ragnarr Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k. The sons of Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k\nare well known from contemporary historical documents through their\npiratical expeditions, more especially the great invasion of England in\n866. Moreover, though the references to Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k himself are rare and\ndoubtful, it is clear enough that the king Ella who is said to have\nput him to death was the Northumbrian usurper Aella, who reigned from\n863 to 867. Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k's father Sigur\u00f0r Hringr has been identified with a\ncertain Sigifridus whose conflict with another Danish king named Anulo\nis recorded in a number of Latin chronicles under the year 812, and\nAnulo himself with that \u00d3li who is represented as Sigur\u00f0r's ally at the\nbattle of Br\u00e1v\u00edk. Lastly, it has been suggested that a reference to\nHaraldr Hildit\u00f6nn may quite possibly be preserved in the description of\nAnulo as _nepos Herioldi quondam regis_[19]; for according to Saxo (p.\n250) \u00d3li was the son of Haraldr's sister and eventually succeeded him\non the Danish throne.\n\nThe above identifications[20] are sufficient to show that historical\ncharacters are introduced into most of the stories with which we have\nbeen dealing. Further--and this is a very remarkable fact--apart from\nthe last cycles embracing Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn and Ragnarr Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k, which\nare entirely confined to Northern literature, all the historical\npersonages whom we have been able to identify belong to a period\nextending over barely two centuries. Eormenric flourished in the latter\nhalf of the fourth century, Attila and the Burgundian kings in the\nfirst half of the fifth; Theodric towards the end of the same century\nand in the first quarter of the sixth. Hygelac again was a contemporary\nof Theodric; while Wolfdietrich, if he is rightly identified with\nTheodberht, died in 548. In the stories which form the common themes of\nEnglish, German and Scandinavian poets we find no mention of historical\npersons who lived after the middle of the sixth century.\n\nNow it will be clear that the cycles of stories dealing with Ragnarr\nLo\u00f0br\u00f3k and his ancestors are really, like the skaldic poems, to\nbe compared with German and English works such as the Ludwigslied\nand the poem on the battle of Brunanburh. The difference in tone is\nsufficiently accounted for by the social conditions of the Viking Age,\nwhich were wholly different from those which prevailed in the Christian\nkingdoms.\n\nThe statement that the common cycles of tradition mention no historical\ncharacters later than about 550 ought perhaps to be qualified in one\ncase. Paulus Diaconus (_Hist. Lang._ I 27) says that the praises of\nAlboin, king of the Langobardi, who died in 572 (or 573), were sung\nby the Saxons, Bavarians and other peoples; and it has been suggested\nthat his account of certain incidents in Alboin's career is derived\nfrom poetic sources. Further, we find the generosity of the same king\ncelebrated in the Anglo-Saxon poem Widsith, where he is apparently the\nlatest person mentioned. Hence there is some ground for including him\namong the characters of common Teutonic poetry--which will involve our\nextending the lower of the chronological limits fixed above by about\ntwenty years. Yet it is not clear that Alboin figured in any poems\nwhich can properly be called narrative, except perhaps among his own\npeople.\n\nOn the other hand some of the Gothic heroes recorded by Jordanes,\nif we are to trust his chronology at all, must be referred to times\nlong anterior to the middle of the fourth century. Apart from Gothic\ntradition the only mention of any of these persons occurs in a brief\npassage in Widsith (v. 113 f.): \"(I have visited) Eastgota, the wise\nand good father of Unwine.\" Now Ostrogotha is brought by Jordanes into\nconnection with the Emperor Philip (v. 244-249). He is mentioned also\nby Cassiodorus (_Var._ XI 1) as one of the ancestors of Amalasuintha\nand as a prince renowned for forbearance (_patientia_). In spite of his\nsuspicious name what is said of him by Jordanes seems to point to a\ngenuine tradition. But if so, even setting aside both the reference to\nPhilip and the genealogy given by Jordanes in cap. 5, he is probably to\nbe referred to a time anterior to the upper limit fixed above. Into the\nstory of Filimer and the migration we need not enter, as there is no\nreason for supposing it to be anything but a purely Gothic tradition.\nThe story of the Langobardic victory over the Vandals (cf. p. 10) is\nprobably of a similar character.\n\nThere remain of course a number of stories which contain no names\nof persons mentioned in contemporary records. The story of Finn is\nin Beowulf connected, rather loosely, with Healfdene, Hrothgar's\nfather. Hence if the incidents which it relates are to be regarded as\nhistorical, they must be dated somewhat earlier, though certainly not\nmore than a century earlier, than Hygelac's expedition. The story of\nOffa and his father Wermund must be referred to a still earlier period\nif we are to trust the evidence of the Mercian genealogy in which these\npersons figure. I have tried elsewhere[21] to show that the Athislus,\nwho in Saxo's version of the story appears as Wermund's enemy, is\nprobably to be identified with the Eadgils prince of the Myrgingas\nmentioned in Widsith. The latter is represented as the contemporary of\nEormenric, and the date thus obtained agrees with that given by the\ngenealogy. The story of Weland, if it contains any historical element,\nshould be placed perhaps slightly further back; for in Waldhere, as\nwell as in many German authorities, including Thi\u00f0reks Saga, Weland is\nsaid to be the father of Widia (Wudga, Witege). The latter is often\nassociated with Eormenric[22], and there can be little doubt that he is\nto be identified with the Gothic Vidigoia who is mentioned as a hero\nof the past by Jordanes (cap. 34) in a quotation from Priscus[23]. For\nthe story of Hagbar\u00f0r and Sign\u00fd a date is afforded by a poem attributed\nby Saxo (p. 214) to Starka\u00f0r. The poet, who in his old age served\nIngellus, i.e. Ingeld, the son-in-law of Hrothgar, says that he had\nfollowed Haki, the brother of Hagbar\u00f0r, in his early youth. In Ynglinga\nSaga (cap. 23) Haki is made to fight with the Swedish king I\u00f6rundr,\nfour generations above A\u00f0ils, but this genealogy cannot be entirely\ncorrect.\n\nThe only important stories which remain are those of Fr\u00f3\u00f0i the Peaceful\nand He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni. In Saxo's history (p. 158 ff.) the two are\nbrought into connection with one another, and it is certainly to be\nnoted that a Fruote von Tenemarke plays rather a prominent part in\nK\u00fbdr\u00fbn, especially the first portion. But Fr\u00f3\u00f0i is associated with\ndifferent sets of persons in different works, and his resemblance\nto the god Frey rather suggests that he was regarded as the typical\nrepresentative of a Golden Age in the past. The story of He\u00f0inn and\nH\u00f6gni is very difficult to locate, both in regard to time and scene.\nWidsith however, which is our earliest authority for it, represents\nHagena (H\u00f6gni) as king of the Holmryge, who appear to have dwelt in\neastern Pomerania. Since the whole of the south coast of the Baltic had\nprobably become Slavonic by the end of the fifth century, it is at all\nevents unlikely that the story refers to any period after this.\n\nWe shall have to discuss later how far these stories are to be regarded\nas historical and to what extent the characters and incidents with\nwhich they deal are to be attributed to myth or fiction. Here it is\nsufficient to point out that with the exception of the story of He\u00f0inn\nand H\u00f6gni, the connections of which are obscure, all the stories\nwhich we have just been discussing are referred by our authorities to\ngenerations anterior to the characters of Beowulf. Hence we may safely\nconclude that the period embraced by the common poetry and traditions\nof the various Teutonic peoples--what we may call the Heroic Age of\nthese peoples--had come to an end by the middle of the sixth century or\nat least by the death of Alboin. Its upper limit must in view of the\nevidence given above be set from two to three centuries back--probably\nthree centuries if we include the story of Ostrogotha.\n\nThese limitations are clearly such as to call for some attempt at\nexplanation. Why do the cycles of story which are common to the various\nTeutonic peoples mention no historical character later than Alboin?\nBefore we can hope to give a satisfactory answer to this question, a\nnumber of other phenomena will have to be taken into account. One or\ntwo observations however will not be out of place here.\n\nThe period extending backwards from two to three centuries before the\nreign of Alboin coincides with what is generally known as the Age of\nNational Migrations (V\u00f6lkerwanderungszeit). It was during this period\nthat many of the Teutonic nations broke through the frontiers of the\nRoman empire and carved out for themselves extensive kingdoms within\nits territories. Among these were the realms of Guthhere and Theodric,\nand in part also that of Attila. There is no doubt that in all these\ncases the conquest of the Roman provinces brought with it a great\naccession of wealth and profoundly affected the life of the invaders.\n\nThe same period witnessed the conversion of most of the continental\nTeutonic peoples to Christianity, another change which produced\nfar-reaching effects upon them. Yet it is not clear at first sight\nhow this change is connected with the chronological limitation of the\nstories, for while some of the chief characters, Attila for instance\nand doubtless Eormenric, were heathens, others such as Theodric were\ncertainly Christians. The change of faith is not a motive which plays\nany part in the stories themselves.\n\nWhatever weight we may be disposed to attach to these observations,\nit should be noted that they do not seem to apply to every case. Thus\nwe shall see in the course of the next chapter that Danish characters\nfigure more prominently than those of any other nation, not only\nin Scandinavian but also in English records, throughout the period\nending with Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki. Yet the Danes took no part, collectively at\nleast, in the movements against the Roman Empire, nor did Christianity\npenetrate to them before the ninth century. It is worth remarking\ntherefore that stories relating to Denmark stop where they do, and that\nfor centuries after the time of Hr\u00f3lfr we can scarcely give the name of\na single Danish prince.\n\nIn the following chapters it will be convenient to speak of the period\nwhich we have been discussing simply as the Heroic Age. The term\n'heroic poetry,' as a translation of Heldendichtung or Heltedigtning,\nmay of course be applied in a sense to such works as H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l or\nthe poem on the battle of Maldon, just as well as to Beowulf or the\nHildebrandslied. But no ambiguity will arise if we limit the term\n'heroic' here to what may be called the 'Teutonic' Heroic Age (das\ngermanische Heldenalter), i.e. to the period embraced by the common\npoetry and traditions of the various Teutonic peoples.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] Except of course those which deal only with supernatural beings\n(p. 11 f.).\n\n[13] Quoted in the prose Edda (Skaldskaparm\u00e1l, cap. 66).\n\n[14] Theodosio XV et Valentiniano IV coss. (A.D. 435): _pax facta cum\nVandalis.... eodem tempore Gundicarium Burgundionum regem intra Gallias\nhabitantem Aetius bello obtriuit, pacemque ei supplicanti dedit, qua\nnon diu potitus est. siquidem illum Hunni cum populo atque stirpe sua\ndeleuerunt._\n\n[15] The overthrow of Guthhere is ascribed to Attila by Paulus Diaconus\nin his _Gesta episc. Mettensium_ (Mon. Germ., Scr. II p. 262), _Hist.\nMisc._ XIV (Muratori, Scr. I p. 97); but he is a late authority. On the\nother hand an anonymous Gaulish chronicle, which ends in the year 452,\nattributes the whole of the Burgundian disasters to Aetius: _bellum\ncontra Burgundionum gentem memorabile exarsit quo uniuersa pene gens\ncum rege per Aetium deleta_ (Mon. Germ., Chron. Min. I 660). But this\nseems to be due to the confusion of two events which Prosper clearly\ndistinguishes (cf. Idatius, _Chron._, Theodosii ann. XII, XIII).\n\n[16] Liber Legum Gundebati, cap. 3 (Mon. Germ., Leg., Vol. III p.\n533): _si quos apud regiae memoriae auctores nostros, id est Gebicam,\nGodomarem, Gislaharium, Gundaharium, patrem quoque nostrum et patruum,\nliberos liberasue fuisse constiterit, in eadem libertate permaneant._\n\n[17] This cycle is supposed to have been known in England at one time,\nowing to the juxtaposition of the names Seafola (Saben) and Theodric in\nWidsith, v. 115. Theodric, king of the Franks, is mentioned in the same\npoem (v. 24).\n\n[18] Cf. Berger de Xivrey, _Traditions T\u00e9ratologiques_, p. 12.\n\n[19] Einhardi Ann., 812 (Mon. Germ., Scr. I p. 199). Prof. Olrik\n(_Nordisches Geistesleben_, p. 44) apparently rejects this\nidentification, as he places Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn not long after the time\nof Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki.\n\n[20] The list makes no claim to completeness. Thus several of the\ncharacters in Hervarar Saga (probably mentioned also in Widsith, v. 116\nff.) have been identified with historical persons of the fifth century.\nBut the evidence is far from satisfactory.\n\n[21] _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 134 f.\n\n[22] But also with Theodric. This is a question to which we shall have\nto refer later.\n\n[23] _Venimus in illum locum ubi dudum Vidigoia, Gothorum fortissimus,\nSarmatum dolo occubuit_ (cf. also cap. 5).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nSCENE AND NATIONALITY IN THE HEROIC STORIES.\n\n\nIn the last chapter it was pointed out that the age covered by the\nheroic poetry and traditions of the Teutonic peoples coincides with a\nclearly marked period of history, extending over about two or possibly\nthree hundred years, and coming to an end in the latter half of the\nsixth century. Something must now be said regarding the geographical\nand ethnographical limitations of the stories--the localities in\nwhich the scenes are laid and the nationalities to which the various\ncharacters belonged. The scenes are distributed over a considerable\npart of Europe, extending from Italy to Sweden and from western Russia\nto the Vosges and the Netherlands. The British Isles however seem to\nhave lain outside the area, though in the late form in which some of\nthe stories have come down to us, we do occasionally find references\nto them--generally to Scotland or Ireland--which are probably due to\nconfusion with stories of the Viking Age. Indeed it is remarkable that\nthe early Anglo-Saxon poems contain no reference to persons or events\nconnected with this country. Further, except possibly in the case of\nthe story of Hengest and Horsa, we have no evidence worth consideration\nthat poems dealing with such subjects ever existed. Norway also is\nnot made the scene of any of the main stories, though it is mentioned\nincidentally in English and German as well as Scandinavian poems.\nThe Balkan peninsula figures only in the later German poems, while\nreferences to places in Italy are limited practically to the Dietrich\n(Theodric) and Wolfdietrich cycles.\n\nTurning to the question of nationality we find the following peoples\nrepresented: (i) to the Goths belong Eormenric, Theodric, Wudga\n(Witege) and probably most of the heroes associated with them; (ii)\nto the Huns Attila; (iii) to the Burgundians Guthhere and his family;\n(iv) to the Rugii apparently Hagena (H\u00f6gni), the father of Hild; (v)\nto the Franks Hugdietrich and Wolfdietrich, if the identifications are\ncorrect; (vi) to the Frisians Finn; (vii) to the Angli Wermund and\nOffa; (viii) to the Danes (_a_) Fr\u00f3\u00f0i the Peaceful, (_b_) Sigarr and\nhis family, together probably with Hagbar\u00f0r and Haki, (_c_) Hr\u00f3lfr\nKraki and his family, perhaps also Froda (Frotho IV) and Ingeld; (ix)\nto the G\u00f6tar Hygelac, Beowulf and their relatives; (x) to the Swedes\n(Svear) A\u00f0ils and his family.\n\nIt is somewhat remarkable that we have no stories dealing with\nAlamannic or Bavarian heroes, since the German poems which have come\ndown to us are almost entirely derived from the territories of these\npeoples[24]. The Vandals too are unrepresented, and probably also the\nVisigoths, while the evidence for Frankish heroes is slight and rather\nunsatisfactory. Frankish nationality is claimed by most scholars for\nSiegfried, chiefly on the ground that Xanten is represented as his home\nin the Nibelungenlied[25]. Yet he is never called a Frank, and it is\nnot clear that Xanten was in the possession of the Franks at the time\nto which the story refers. The same nationality may perhaps be claimed\nfor Waldhere. In several German poems Langres is said to be his home,\nthough he is also called a Spaniard, while Ekkehard makes his father\nking of Aquitaine[26]. To this question we shall have to return later.\nIn any case both stories refer to a period considerably anterior to the\nreal conquest of Gaul by the Franks, and it is certainly a curious fact\nthat Clovis and his great achievements seem to be entirely unnoticed in\npoetry.\n\nIt appears then that though most of the principal Teutonic nations are\nrepresented in our stories the relative prominence assigned to them\ndoes not at all correspond to what we should expect. Most remarkable is\nthe fact that in stories relating to the Continent nearly all the chief\ncharacters (Eormenric, Theodric, Guthhere, Attila, etc.) belong to\nnations which had passed out of existence before the end of the sixth\ncentury. From Jordanes (cap. 5) we gather that the preservation of the\nearly Gothic traditions was very largely due to the pride taken by that\npeople in its own heroes of the past. Yet it is not easy to see how the\nsurvival of the stories which have come down to us can be ascribed to\nany such feeling.\n\nLet us first examine the Anglo-Saxon poems. In Beowulf the scene is\nlaid first in the land of the Danes and later in that of the G\u00f6tar. The\nhero himself belongs to the latter nation, but in the earlier part of\nthe poem the former are decidedly the more prominent. Taking it as a\nwhole the interest is divided between the royal families of these two\nnations; the only other dynasty which comes in for any considerable\nshare of attention is that of the Swedes. In the story of Finn the\ninterest is centred in a prince and his followers who according to\nBeowulf were of Danish nationality and involved in hostilities with the\nFrisians. In Waldhere the hero and heroine, whatever their nationality,\nbelong to Gaul, while their opponents are Burgundians. In Deor the\ninterests are mainly, perhaps exclusively, Gothic. In Widsith the\nforemost characters are Eadgils, prince of the Myrgingas (a dynasty\nhostile to the Angli), and the Gothic king Eormenric; after them the\nEnglish king Offa, the Danish kings Hrothgar and Hrothwulf, Guthhere,\nking of the Burgundians, Aelfwine (Alboin, king of the Langobardi) and\nseveral Gothic heroes. In all these poems there is no reference, as far\nas we know, to any person of English nationality except Offa and his\nrelatives (Beow. 1944 ff.), nor except in Widsith is the name of the\nAngli even mentioned.\n\nIf we turn now to the Scandinavian records, which are entirely\nNorse (Norwegian-Icelandic), so far as the vernacular literature is\nconcerned, the phenomena which confront us are on the whole very\nsimilar. As we might expect from the comparative lateness of our\nauthorities the nationality of the various characters is not very\nclearly indicated. It is remembered that Atli (Attila) belonged to the\nHuns and I\u00f6rmunrekr (Eormenric) to the Goths, but Gunnarr (Guthhere)\nis only once called lord of the Burgundians. As for Sigur\u00f0r, his later\nadventures are uniformly located in the Rhineland, but the history\nof his family is generally connected with Denmark, which is also the\nscene of Helgi's exploits. Most noteworthy however is the fact that\nNorway is only mentioned once in the Older Edda, namely in the prose of\nHelgakvi\u00f0a Hi\u00f6rvar\u00f0ssonar. In the sagas it is somewhat more prominent,\ne.g. in the account of Biarki's origin in Hr\u00f3lfs Saga Kraka; but these\npassages are usually regarded as accretions to the original stories.\nOf course there are numerous other sagas which deal exclusively with\nNorwegian history and legend. These stories however are peculiar to\nNorwegian-Icelandic literature, and the earliest persons who figure in\nthem, if we may regard them as historical, cannot have lived before\nthe seventh century. In stories relating to earlier times the scene is\npractically always laid in Denmark or southern Sweden or in the lands\nsouth of the Baltic.\n\nEven in the German poems national feeling has influenced the choice\nof subjects comparatively little. The poems in their present form are\nmainly Austrian or Bavarian. Yet except in the second half of the\nNibelungenlied this region does not figure prominently[27], and even\nthere the Bavarian characters that occur are generally believed to\nbe rather late additions to the story. The chief characters of the\nstory in its original form were clearly Burgundians and Huns, to whom\nthe Goths may have been added at a fairly early date. The stories\nwhich deal with the Rhineland--those of Siegfried and Walther--may\nbe derived ultimately from early Frankish poems; but this cannot be\nproved. Most of the others are concerned with Gothic heroes, the true\nscene of whose adventures is to be sought in Poland, Hungary, Italy\nand other countries which had ceased to be Teutonic before the time of\nour authorities. Theodric, it is true, seems to have become a national\nhero in the south-east, but this feature is prominent only in the\nlatest poems, and even here it is clearly remembered that he belonged\nto Italy. But the most remarkable case is that of K\u00fbdr\u00fbn. The poem\nitself is probably Austrian, but the names which it contains show that\nthe story is derived from Frisian sources. The scene is laid first in\nIreland, then in Denmark and lastly in Normandy. Yet if we take into\naccount the various Scandinavian versions and the references to the\nstory in Anglo-Saxon poetry, there is every probability that it came\noriginally from the Baltic.\n\nThis short discussion will suffice to show how singularly free the\npoems we have been discussing are from anything in the nature of\nnational interest or sentiment. They are certainly national in the\nsense that the characters are drawn entirely, or almost entirely, from\nwithin the Teutonic world--for even Attila can hardly be regarded as an\nexception. But nationalism in the narrower sense, i.e. in the interests\nof the poet's own nation or tribe, seems to be altogether wanting. The\ninterest is centred in one or more individual characters and in the\nvarious adventures that befall them. Sometimes, as in Beowulf, it does\nalso embrace the history of the family to which these persons belonged,\nbut the nation, apart from the royal family, is practically disregarded.\n\nThe contrast afforded by the historical poems of the ninth and tenth\ncenturies[28] is sufficiently obvious. We have seen that these poems,\nwhether English or German, uniformly deal with the poet's own nation.\nThe poem on the battle of Brunanburh is an expression of national\ntriumph. It is not concerned with the personal adventures of the king\nor his brother, but with the prowess of the English army as a whole.\nThe bravery of the princes is certainly noticed, but they appear to\nbe regarded as the champions and representatives of the nation. The\nLudwigslied breathes on the whole a similar spirit, in spite of its\nstrongly religious tone. Even in the skaldic poetry of the North traces\nof national pride are clearly discernible, as in H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l (v. 3),\nwhere Haakon, at the head of his Norwegian troops, is described as the\nterror of the Danes.\n\nIt may perhaps be urged that, though the poems which have come down to\nus have no national interest, they may be derived from older poems\nwhich originated in the hero's own land. Thus many scholars believe\nBeowulf to be of Scandinavian origin in one sense or another, though\nthe linguistic arguments which have been brought forward in favour of\nthis view are not generally admitted. But there is a curious lack of\nuniformity in the national interests of the poem, as we have already\nseen. If it had been the chief intention of the original poet to\nglorify the Danish nation, he would not have ignored it as he has done\nin the latter part of the poem. On the other hand if his intention\nwas to glorify the G\u00f6tar he would hardly have begun with an account\nof the early kings of the Danes. The difficulty has been got over by\nsupposing that the poem as we have it is of composite formation, and it\nmay very well be that the second part of the poem is a later addition.\nBut it is to be observed that somewhat similar phenomena occur in other\ncases. Thus the stories of Siegfried and Attila are connected both in\nthe Nibelungenlied and the Edda, and there can be no doubt that the\nconnection is of considerable antiquity. Yet the only common element\nin the two stories is supplied by the Burgundians, and the portraiture\nof their princes, especially that of the king, is hardly of such a\ncharacter as to suggest its derivation from a poem composed for the\nglorification of the Burgundian nation.\n\nThe evidence then of Beowulf alone is scarcely sufficient to justify\nus in assuming more than that its author or authors were interested in\nthe royal families of the North, and that they possessed a considerable\namount of information regarding them. The account of the early kings of\nthe Danes seems to be in the nature of a tribal or family tradition--to\nbe compared with the early stories given by Jordanes, Paulus Diaconus\nand Widukind. Traditions of this kind are no doubt generally of a\nmythical character, and consequently their origin is to be sought in\nthe particular locality or family with which they are concerned. We\nhave no evidence that such traditions formed the main theme of stories\nwhich were common to the poetry of the various Teutonic peoples. But\nit is natural enough that a poet who was well acquainted with some\nroyal family, whether that of his own nation or not, would also know\nits traditions, and that he would utilise them incidentally or by way\nof introduction in a poem largely concerned with the fortunes of that\nfamily.\n\nThe main story of the poem stands on a different footing. Of course if\nit could be shown that the Danish princes who figure both in Beowulf\nand the various Scandinavian records were fictitious persons, who never\nreally existed, we should be bound to hold that they were derived from\na common story, probably of Scandinavian origin. But few scholars would\nnow be willing to admit such a proposition. Certain incidents, such as\nthe exhortation of Ingeld (Ingellus) by the old warrior (Starcatherus),\nmay be held to point to a common origin in poem or saga; but most of\nthe events narrated appear to have been either preserved by memory or\ninvented independently.\n\nWith the stories of Sigur\u00f0r (Siegfried) and Waldhere the case is\nsomewhat different. It is the opinion of the great majority of scholars\nthat both these heroes are mythical or fictitious, in spite of the\nfact that they are associated with undoubtedly historical characters.\nIf this view is correct--a question which we shall have to discuss\nlater--we may conclude at once that the different versions of the two\nstories, Scandinavian and German in the one case, English and German in\nthe other, have sprung from a common source, whether in poem or saga.\nBut even if we take the opposite view, viz. that Sigur\u00f0r and Waldhere\nwere real persons and that their adventures are founded on fact, it\ndoes not by any means follow that the different versions of their\nstories must have originated independently. Neither hero seems to have\nbelonged to a family of outstanding position, nor were their exploits\nsuch as to influence the destiny of nations.[29] In the age of Hunnish\nsupremacy scores of petty princes must have undergone somewhat similar\nadventures and distinguished themselves by similar deeds of heroism.\nHence it can hardly be due to accident that the handful whose names we\nknow were celebrated far and wide in the Teutonic world.\n\nThe story of Eormenric is again rather a different case. There can be\nno question that this king was a historical person, but the earliest\ndetailed account which we possess of his doings, viz. that given by\nJordanes, dates from nearly two centuries after his death. Now we find\nwhat is perhaps the most striking episode in Eormenric's story, namely\nthe account of Swanhild and the vengeance attempted by her brothers,\nboth in Jordanes and the Older Edda (Gu\u00f0r\u00fanarhv\u00f6t and Ham\u00f0ism\u00e1l) with\ncomparatively slight variations. The chief feature wanting in Jordanes'\naccount is supplied by the Annals of Quedlinburg.[30] How much truth\nthe story contains we are not in a position to decide. But even if\nwe grant that the main features are historical, the event can hardly\nhave been of the first importance, since the attack seems really to\nhave failed in its object. Ammianus Marcellinus says that Eormenric\ncommitted suicide owing to despair at the impending Hunnish invasion,\nand Jordanes recognises that his death was partly due to this cause.\nBut in the later (Scandinavian and German) accounts it is entirely\nforgotten. Hence if we bear in mind the close agreement between the\nGothic and Scandinavian versions of the story, not only in the names\nof the characters but also in the description of Swanhild's death, we\ncan hardly help inferring that they are derived from a common narrative\nsource.\n\nIn conclusion mention may be made of a story which appears to be\ndefinitely at variance with historical truth, namely the account of\nAttila's death given in the Edda poems Atlakvi\u00f0a and Atlam\u00e1l. It is\nthere stated that Attila was murdered with his two children by his wife\nGu\u00f0r\u00fan in revenge for her brothers (Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni), whom he had\ntreacherously put to death. Now Jordanes (cap. 49) says that Attila\ndied from the bursting of a blood-vessel on the night of his marriage\nwith a girl named Ildico. As his account is derived from Priscus, a\ncontemporary and trustworthy writer, there can be little doubt that\nit is correct. Yet it should be observed that the Roman chronicler\nMarcellinus Comes, who wrote apparently a few years before Jordanes,\nsays that Attila died by the hand of a woman.[31] The account given in\nthe Edda therefore is no invention of an Icelandic or Norwegian poet,\nbut founded on a story which was current among the Romans within a\ncentury after Attila's death. Indeed considering the circumstances it\nis by no means unlikely that the story originated immediately after the\nevent.\n\nThese examples will be sufficient to show that the subjects of many\nof our poems are derived from stories which passed from one Teutonic\npeople to another and some of which were of great antiquity. Further,\nit is a proof of the popularity of these stories that they were\npreserved until comparatively late in the Middle Ages, in spite of\nthe fact that they did not appeal to national interests. The question\nhow they were preserved and transmitted is one which we shall have to\ndiscuss in the following chapters. We may note at once however that the\nmost obvious means of preservation, namely by means of writing, was\nalmost certainly not used to any great extent. Had that been the case\nthe divergencies between the different versions of the stories would\nbe far less noticeable than they are. Even in the case of Waldhere,\nwhich shows probably the least amount of variation, the Anglo-Saxon\nfragments show a treatment of the subject totally different from that\nwhich appears in Ekkehard's poem. Again, there is no evidence that\nthe Roman alphabet was used in the North, except possibly by a few\nforeigners here and there, before the end of the tenth century, while\nthe Runic alphabet, though it had been known for many centuries, seems\nnot to have been employed for literary purposes until very late times.\nBut, as we have already mentioned, some of the Edda poems date probably\nfrom the ninth century, and the story of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni is used by\nthe poet Bragi who lived apparently in the early part of that century.\nOn the Continent of course the case is somewhat different. We have\nseen that Charlemagne did have a number of ancient poems written down;\nbut there is nothing to show that his collection had any permanent\ninfluence. When the Quedlinburg annalist or his authority quotes the\nheroic stories, perhaps some two centuries later, he refers not to any\nwritten works but to songs formerly current among the country people.\nIt is doubtless by oral tradition therefore, whether in verse or prose,\nthat the stories of the Heroic Age have mainly been preserved.\n\nThere can be no question that a large number of similar stories\nhave perished. A glance through the catalogues of Widsith will show\nmany names which otherwise are entirely unknown to us, and also an\nappreciable number which are not mentioned elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon\nliterature, though they figure in German and Scandinavian records. It\nwould scarcely be wise however to assume that all the stories of the\nHeroic Age were common Teutonic property. Thus we have no evidence\nfor the story of Waldhere in the North[32], while stories dealing\nwith Danish heroes seem to have been little known in Germany. The\nlatter observation deserves notice all the more in view of the obvious\npopularity of such stories in England--a fact proved not merely by\nBeowulf and Finn, but still more by the prominence assigned to Danish\ncharacters in Widsith.\n\nIt will be convenient now to summarise briefly the results of our\ndiscussion. We have seen that the scenes of the heroic stories are\ndistributed over most of the lands formerly occupied by the Teutonic\npeoples. Norway and England however, as well as the distant kingdoms\nof the Visigoths and Vandals, seem to lie outside the area. The heroes\nalso are drawn from many nations, though not in the proportion which\nwe should expect. Thus the Frankish nation, which ultimately became\ndominant, is but poorly represented, while the most prominent places\nare taken by peoples such as the Ostrogoths and Burgundians, which lost\ntheir nationality in the course of the sixth century.\n\nWe have further seen that a very large proportion of the characters of\nthe heroic stories figure in the literature of two or more nations, and\nthat frequently the same stories are told of them. In the latter case\nit is probable, indeed often practically certain, that the different\nversions of the story are ultimately derived from a common narrative.\nOn the other hand, where the same characters are known but only in\nconnection with different events, such derivation can be proved only\nif it can be shown that the characters themselves are fictitious. This\nremark applies especially to a number of characters common to Beowulf\nand Scandinavian stories relating to Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki and his times.\n\nIt is fully in accord with these facts that the heroic poems are not\nconcerned at all--or at least only to a very slight degree--with local\nor tribal interests. Their tone indeed may be described as in a sense\ninternational, though with the restriction that characters and scenes\nalike are drawn exclusively from within the Teutonic world.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[24] These poems do introduce Bavarian characters, such as the Markgraf\nR\u00fcdiger; but they are not found elsewhere in heroic poetry.\n\n[25] In the prose piece _Fr\u00e1 dau\u00f0i Sinfi\u00f6tla_ (in the Older Edda)\nSigmundr is said to have held territories in the land of the Franks.\n\n[26] Hence many scholars regard him as a Visigoth.\n\n[27] Tyrol is the scene of several of Dietrich's and Wolfdietrich's\nadventures; but generally it is the southern (Italian) part of that\ncountry.\n\n[28] The poem on the battle of Maldon approximates much more closely\nthan any other of this age to the spirit of the old poetry.\n\n[29] The victories over the Saxons and Danes described in the\nNibelungenlied and the Th\u00e1ttr af Nornagesti have little in common and\nare scarcely to be regarded as an essential feature in the story of\nSigur\u00f0r.\n\n[30] _Anastasius annos_ XXVII.... _Ermanrici regis Gothorum a\nfratribus Hemido et Serilo et Adaccaro, quorum patrem interfecerat,\namputatis manibus et pedibus turpiter, ut dignus erat, occisio_ (Mon.\nGerm., Scr. III p. 31).\n\n[31] Ind. VII. Aetio et Studio coss. (A.D. 454): _Attila rex Hunnorum\nEuropae orbator prouinciae noctu mulieris manu cultroque confoditur.\nquidam uero sanguinis reiectione necatum perhibent._\n\n[32] Excluding of course Thi\u00f0reks S. af Bern.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE HEROIC POEMS.\n\n\nIn an earlier chapter (p. 3) it was mentioned that the English heroic\npoems are usually ascribed to the seventh or eighth centuries. We\nmust now try to see whether any means are to be found of dating their\ncomposition more precisely.\n\nUnfortunately very few references to the poems or their subjects occur\nin works which can be dated with anything like certainty. The most\nimportant is contained in a letter from Alcuin to Hygebald, bishop of\nLindisfarne, written in the year 797: \"When priests dine together let\nthe words of God be read. It is fitting on such occasions to listen\nto a reader, not to a harpist, to the discourses of the fathers,\nnot to the poems of the heathen. What has Ingeld to do with Christ?\nStrait is the house; it will not be able to hold them both. The king\nof heaven will have no part with so-called kings who are heathen and\ndamned; for the one king reigns eternally in heaven, the other, the\nheathen, is damned and groans in hell. In your houses the voices of\nthose who read should be heard, not a rabble of those who make merry\nin the streets[33].\" From this passage it is clear that at the end of\nthe eighth century there were current in Northumbria certain poems,\nprobably well known poems, dealing with a heathen king named Ingeld,\nwhom we need not hesitate to identify with Ingeld the son of Froda,\nwho figures in Beowulf. Of course it is not at all likely that the\nreference is to Beowulf itself, for the part played by Ingeld in that\npoem is insignificant.\n\nAcquaintance with the subjects of the heroic poems is shown also by a\nmistake in the Historia Brittonum, 31, which dates probably from about\nthe same period. This passage contains a genealogy, tracing the descent\nof Hengest and Horsa from Woden and of Woden from Geat. The latter part\nis known also from many other texts, in which it regularly runs as\nfollows: _Woden Frealafing, Frealaf Frithuwulfing, Frithuwulf Finning,\nFinn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating_. In the Historia Brittonum however\nin place of _Finn Godwulfing_ we find _Finn qui fuit Folcwald_--which\nis clearly due to confusion with Finn the son of Folcwalda (_Finn\nFolcwalding_), a Frisian king mentioned in Beowulf and Widsith, as well\nas in the fragment which bears his name.\n\nFurther evidence is afforded by names of persons and places. There\ncan be no doubt that even in the seventh century it was customary to\ntake the names of famous men of the past or present. Danihel, bishop\nof Winchester (d. 745), and Iohannes, bishop of Hexham (d. 721), are\ninstances which no one will dispute. In the Durham Liber Vitae we meet\nwith the names Aethan and Cundigeorn. It must not be assumed that\npersons bearing such names were necessarily of Celtic blood. Indeed the\nspelling suggests rather that they were Englishmen called after Aidan\nand Kentigern. Deusdedit, archbishop of Canterbury (655-664), doubtless\nderived his name from Pope Deusdedit (615-618), while the West Saxon\nking Ceadwalla (685-688) was in all probability called after the\nBritish king of the same name, who died in 642. It is extremely likely\nthat Hlothhere, king of Kent (673-685), obtained his name from one of\nthe Frankish kings, Lothair II (584-628) or Lothair III (656-670), for\nthe element _hloth-_ is not used elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon names. Even\nin the sixth century we hear of English princes who seem to be called\nafter Frankish or Gothic kings of the same period. Thus Tytla, the name\nof the father of the East Anglian king Redwald, is probably taken from\nthe Gothic king Totila; it is not of an English type. Two sons of\nthe Northumbrian king Ida were called Theodric and Aethelric, perhaps\nafter the Gothic king Theodric and his successor Athalaric. As the\nelement _theod-_ is somewhat rare in England, it is not unlikely that\nthe Northumbrian prince Theodbald, a son of Aethelric, derived his name\nfrom the Frankish king Theodbald.\n\nThe occurrence of such names as Widsith and Beowulf (_Biuulf_) in the\nLiber Vitae shows that names were taken not only from contemporary\npersons and from books but also from native poems and traditions.\nIndeed researches which have been made in this direction have\ndemonstrated that names of the latter type were extremely popular. But\nit has not been sufficiently pointed out that such names occur most\nfrequently in the earliest times and gradually become more rare--a fact\nwhich is of considerable importance for our purpose. The total number\nof personal names found in the five poems Beowulf, Finn, Waldhere,\nWidsith and Deor is 132[34], and of these altogether 57 recur as names\nof persons mentioned in English historical documents. Over forty of\nthese names belonged to persons who appear to have lived, or at any\nrate to have been born, before the end of the seventh century[35],\nwhile at least thirteen of them are unknown after the same period. To\nthe latter class belong the important names Widsith and Beowulf.\n\nIn local nomenclature it is possible to trace at least 51 of the 132\nnames mentioned above. In some cases these names may have been taken\ndirect from the story, e.g. when we find in Kent two localities close\ntogether called _Hokes clif_ and _Hengstes earas_ (Birch, _Cart.\nSax._, III 1000). A similar case, very frequently cited[36], is that\nof _Beowanhammes hecgan_ and _Grendeles mere_ in Wiltshire (_ib._ II\n677), though neither of these names is included in our list. But in the\nmajority of cases it is more probable that the place-name is taken in\nthe first instance from that of a previous landowner, and consequently\nthat the connection with the story is only secondary. Hence it is\nimportant to notice that out of the 51 place-names no less than 19\ncontain names which are not borne by persons in historical documents.\nThe explanation of this lies doubtless in the fact that the place-names\nfor the most part became fixed at a very early period, and consequently\nthat they exhibit an earlier stratum of personal nomenclature.\n\nIf we add the place-names to the personal names the total number of\nheroic names found in England in historical documents seems to be\n76. Out of this number only seven apparently are limited to persons\nborn after the end of the seventh century, and of these again almost\nall occur in the course of the eighth century. These statistics show\nclearly that such names were most popular during the sixth and seventh\ncenturies, especially if we bear in mind that the materials for this\nperiod are incomparably less than those for the following three\ncenturies. Hence, if we are justified in drawing any conclusions from\nnomenclature, the popularity of the heroic stories was distinctly on\nthe wane in Alcuin's time.\n\nThe argument from nomenclature holds good of course only for showing\nthe popularity of the stories; it cannot prove the existence of the\npoems which we now possess. In one case however we may probably make an\nexception. The name _Widsith_ is obviously fictitious[37] and based on\nthe travels with which the minstrel is credited. The introduction, in\nwhich alone the name occurs, is in all probability a later composition\nthan the rest of the poem[38] and designed to explain what follows. It\nis of importance therefore to note that, if we may judge from the place\nin which this name occurs in the Liber Vitae, it must have been borne\nby a person of the seventh century.\n\nWe must next turn to the internal evidence. The linguistic criteria\nare of a somewhat unsatisfactory nature and investigations in this\nfield have led to few definite results. It is clear that the heroic\npoems do not exhibit any dialect in its purity--a remark which is\ntrue of Anglo-Saxon poetry in general. West Saxon forms predominate\nand there is no doubt that the final recension of the text is due to\nscribes who employed this dialect. Yet at the same time there are a\nsufficient number of Midland or Northumbrian characteristics[39] to\nrender it highly probable that the poems were not only composed but\nalso originally written down in one of these dialects. Beyond this\nhowever no safe conclusions can be attained owing to the lateness of\nthe MSS.\n\nIn regard to syntax the heroic poems are at least as archaic as any\nother remains of Anglo-Saxon poetry which have come down to us. We may\nnotice especially the use of the definite article, which in reality\nis still a demonstrative pronoun in the heroic poems. It occurs\ncomparatively seldom in connection with a weak adjective followed by a\nsubstantive--a usage which is nearly universal in most of the Christian\npoems. Thus in Cynewulf's works the proportion of examples with and\nwithout the article varies from 7:1 to 9:1, and even in the first part\nof Guthlac, which is believed to date from soon after the middle of\nthe eighth century, the proportion is 7:1[40]; but in Beowulf it is\nonly 1:5. If the Dream of the Cross, in which the proportion is 2:1,\nis rightly attributed to the early years of the eighth century[41],\nit seems reasonable to date the composition of Beowulf quite half a\ncentury further back. The nearest approach to the usage of Beowulf is\nshown by Exodus, in which the proportion is over 2:3. Unfortunately\nwe have no certain means of dating this work, though it is generally\nbelieved to be one of the earliest of the Christian poems. Its archaic\ncharacter would be natural enough if it is really the work of Caedmon,\nwho flourished while Hild was abbess at Whitby (658-680) and who\naccording to Bede[42] did compose a poem or poems on this subject.\n\nThe metrical characteristics of the heroic poems differ but little from\nthose of Anglo-Saxon poetry in general. Cases of absence of contraction\nafter the loss of intervocalic _-h-_ (e.g. in the half-verse _hean\nhuses_) can be paralleled in poems dating from the close of the eighth\ncentury or even later, where they are doubtless to be regarded as\npoetic archaisms. On the other hand importance is generally attached\nto the absence of any evidence for the retention of _-u_ after a long\nsyllable and to the shortening of syllables containing _-r-_ which\nwas originally followed by antevocalic _-h-_. Thus it is contended\nthat such combinations as _to widan feore_ in the latter half of a\nverse cannot go back to the middle of the seventh century[43], since\nthe form in use at that time would be _feorha_, which would offend\nagainst the metre. As a matter of fact half-verses of the condemned\ntype do occur in Anglo-Saxon poetry, Beowulf itself containing at least\neight examples. But even if we were to admit all these statements\nand emend the offending verses the argument would be conclusive only\non the assumption that the poems were written down from the very\nbeginning[44]. Poems which are preserved by oral tradition alone are\nmanifestly liable to small verbal changes, especially in a metre so\nflexible as that of the Teutonic alliterative verse. Thus in place of\nthe expression _to widan feore_ we find occasionally _widan feore_ in\nthe same sense, and even in Beowulf we meet with _widan feorh_ which\nis not improbably the oldest form of the phrase. Before the loss\nof final _-u_ it would be a perfectly regular half-verse, but the\noperation of this change would render it impossible and necessitate the\nsubstitution of a synonymous expression. In principle, it should be\nobserved, the assumption of such substitutions seems to be absolutely\nnecessary, unless we are prepared to deny that any old poems or even\nverses survived the period of apocope. Yet there is a sufficient amount\nof resemblance between English and German poetry, not merely in the\ngeneral metrical scheme but also in the construction of individual\nverses[45], to render such a conclusion extremely improbable.\nConsequently I am very much inclined to doubt whether any safe\nconclusions as to the date of the poems can be obtained from metrical\nconsiderations, except of course as regards their final form.\n\nOf far greater importance is the fact that with the exception of the\nFinn-fragment, which consists of only fifty verses, all our poems\ncontain passages or references of a religious (Christian) character.\nIn Beowulf alone there are about seventy such passages of which the\nsignificance is not open to question, and seven or eight others which\nmay belong to the same category. Out of the total number thirty-three\nare limited to single verses or half-verses[46], while another sixteen\naffect not more than two verses in each case[47]. The longest passage\nof all (v. 1724 ff.) contains at least 37 verses, the next longest (v.\n175 ff.) fourteen. The rest vary from three to nine verses[48]. The\ntheology which appears in these passages is of a singularly vague type.\nThere are four distinct references to incidents in the early part of\nGenesis, viz. one (v. 90 ff.) to the Creation, two (vv. 107 ff., 1261\nff.) to the story of Cain and Abel and one (v. 1688 ff.) to the Flood.\nApart from these there appears to be no reference to any passage in\nthe Bible except perhaps in v. 1745 ff., which are thought by some to\nbe based on Ephes. vi. 16, and in v. 3069, which contains the phrase\n'day of judgment.' We find also a few references to rewards and\npunishments in a future life[49]. The word _god_ is of very frequent\noccurrence and always used in the Christian sense. The other epithets\nof the Deity are 'lord' (_frea_, _dryhten_), 'father' (_faeder_),\n'creator' (_scyppend_), 'ruler' (_waldend_), 'almighty' (_alwalda_,\n_aelmihtiga_), 'ruler of men' (_ylda_ or _fira waldend_), 'ruler of\nglory' (_wuldres waldend_), 'shepherd of glory' (_wuldres hyrde_),\n'king of glory' (_wuldurcyning_), 'guider of the heavens' (_rodera\nraedend_), 'helm of the heavens' (_heofena helm_), 'ruler of victories'\n(_sigora waldend_), 'king of victories' (_sigora so\u00f0cyning_). On the\nother hand there is no example of the word _gast_ in a religious sense\n(Holy Ghost), nor of the name _Crist_, nor of any epithet denoting\n'Saviour' (_nergend_, _haelend_ etc.). Hardly less curious is the total\nabsence of the word _engel_, for expressions such as 'lord of angels'\n(_engla dryhten_[50]) are among the most frequent epithets of the Deity\nin Anglo-Saxon religious poems. Lastly, there are no references to the\nsaints, to the cross or to the church, nor to any Christian rites or\nceremonies.\n\nIt appears then that the religious utterances of the poem are of a\nsingularly one-sided character. Indeed it has been observed[51] that,\nwith the exception perhaps of vv. 977-9, \"their theology is covered\nby the Old Testament, and a pious Jew would have no difficulty in\nassenting to them all.\" Certainly the facts are such as to call for\nsome explanation, especially since the religious poems are pervaded by\na wholly different tone.\n\nOne suggestion is that Beowulf was composed under the influence of\nthe missionaries from Iona; but it is extremely doubtful whether\nthe influence of Irish Christianity would tend in this direction at\nall[52]. Another is that the poet had little direct knowledge of the\nChristian religion, but that he was acquainted with some religious\npoems. This explanation certainly seems to fit the case much better\nthan the other. Moreover there is one piece of positive evidence in its\nfavour. In Beow. v. 89 ff. we hear of recitation to the accompaniment\nof the harp in Hrothgar's hall, and the subject of the recitation is\nthe creation of the world. It appears to me highly probable that we\nhave here an allusion to Caedmon's poem or poems on Genesis, which may\nvery well have been among the earliest of that poet's productions. At\nall events it was by his hymn on the Creation that he first became\nknown. The inference is strengthened by the rather close resemblance\nwhich the hymn bears to the phraseology of Beowulf. If the two poets\nwere contemporary the author of Beowulf would have no other Christian\npoet on whom to draw, and the limitations of his theological equipment\nmight be satisfactorily accounted for on the hypothesis that he knew\nonly a few of Caedmon's works. As a matter of fact two or three out of\nthe list given by Bede[53] would have been quite sufficient to provide\nhim with all the statements and terms that he uses.\n\nThere is another question however with regard to the composition of\nBeowulf which has aroused more controversy than this, namely whether\nthe Christian passages formed an original part of the poem or not. In\nthe former case of course the poem cannot have been composed before the\nsecond quarter of the seventh century. Indeed, if we grant the use of\nCaedmon's poetry the earliest possible date would be about 660. On the\nother hand if the Christian passages are due to interpolation the upper\nlimit for the dating of the poem vanishes into air.\n\nAs to the possibility of such interpolation in principle we need\nscarcely entertain any doubt. It is true that the Christian passages\nor references cannot as a rule be removed without breaking into the\nrhythm. Consequently, if interpolation has taken place we must assume\nit to be the work of poets or minstrels, and not of scribes. But\nhave we any reason for doubting that the minstrels of that period\nwere capable of such 'interpolation.' Wherever poetry--at all events\nanonymous narrative poetry--is preserved exclusively by oral tradition,\nit is usually the case that the minstrel is allowed a certain amount\nof freedom in the presentation of his subject.[54] Now probably no one\nwill suggest that it was only after their conversion to Christianity\nthat the English began to compose poems about 'heathen kings.' But,\nif we grant that such poems were already in existence, does it really\ninvolve a greater amount of effort on the part of the minstrels to\nbring these poems up to date--by removing objectionable matter and\nintroducing expressions in accordance with the new religion--than to\ncompose an entirely new set of poems on the same subjects. I cannot\nthink that such a view will be seriously maintained. Therefore we must\nconsider the case of Beowulf--the only narrative poem which has come\ndown to us entire--without prejudice on the general question; and we\nmust endeavour to see whether it bears the stamp of a new composition\nor that of an old work which has been brought into conformity with new\nideas. The probability or improbability of the latter view will of\ncourse depend largely on the amount of inconsistency which the poem is\nfound to contain.\n\nUntil within the last few years the majority of scholars believed that\nBeowulf was a composite work. This theory was most fully developed in\nthe writings of M\u00fcllenhoff and ten Brink. According to the former[55]\nthe poem was made up from four separate lays, though in its present\nform nearly half of it is the work of interpolators. The latter[56]\nlikewise traced the origin of the poem to lays, but explained its\ninconsistencies as being due not to extensive interpolations but to\nthe combination of two parallel versions. In regard to the relative\nantiquity of the various parts of the poem there was great divergence\nof opinion both between these scholars and generally. It is perhaps\npartly on this account that in recent years there has been a reaction\nin favour of believing that the poem as we have it is practically\nthe work of one man, though it is allowed that he may have made use\nof earlier lays. But those who have adopted this view seem to agree\nthat the author, whatever his precise date, belonged to the Christian\nperiod, and consequently that the religious passages are not due to\ninterpolation.\n\nNow in the first place it is clear that the story of Beowulf is derived\nfrom the Baltic, and the first question which we have to settle is as\nto the time at which the information on which it is based became known\nin England. The Angli themselves were originally a Baltic people, as I\nhave tried elsewhere to show, and there is no doubt that down to the\ntime of the invasion of Britain they were thoroughly familiar with all\nthe surrounding regions. But we have no evidence whatever for believing\nthat such was the case within the historical period. By the end of the\nsixth century, when the first missionaries arrived in this country,\nthey had apparently ceased to be a seafaring people, and we have no\nrecord of any voyage made by an Englishman across the North Sea for\nseveral centuries. Again, the Danes became familiar to the west of\nEurope during the sixth century; but from about 580 onwards we hear\nno more of their presence on the North Sea for fully two centuries.\nDuring the whole of this period their name is heard of only in\nconnection with the missionary expeditions of St Willibrord, early in\nthe eighth century. I have suggested elsewhere[57] that their temporary\ndisappearance was due to the maritime supremacy held by the Frisians.\nAt all events we have archaeological evidence for a considerable amount\nof communication between southern Norway and the Frisian coasts during\nthis period, while for the Baltic such evidence is almost wholly\nwanting.\n\nBearing these facts in mind we can hardly doubt that the information\nused by Beowulf was acquired before the end of the sixth century--in\nall probability we may say considerably before that date.[58] Next we\nhave to notice that we have practically no trustworthy information\nregarding the history of the English kingdoms before the middle of the\nsixth century, and I think it will be the opinion of any attentive\nstudent of early English history that even the best informed persons of\nBede's time were not much better off in this respect than we ourselves\nare. How then are we to account for the preservation of detailed\ninformation regarding the early kings of the Danes and Swedes? The only\nanswer to this question, so far as I can see, is that the doings of\nsuch persons must have become embodied in stories which were preserved\nby recitation in a more or less fixed form of words. Such recitative\npieces may have consisted of poetry alone or of poetry mixed with\nprose, like some of the pieces contained in the Older Edda. If we\nmay trust the analogy of what appear to be the oldest pieces in this\ncollection, such as V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a or Helgakvi\u00f0a Hundingsbana II, the\nspeeches would be given in metre, while the connecting narrative might\nbe partly or wholly in prose and quite brief. We have no evidence for\nbelieving that the early Teutonic peoples ever used entirely prose\nnarratives, like the Icelandic and Irish sagas, for such purposes.\n\nAt all events it seems to me that if Beowulf is no older than the\nmiddle of the seventh century we are bound to assume the existence of\nearlier poems or narratives on the same subject. Such pieces may of\ncourse have been quite short, and it is likely enough that our epic\nhas made use of more than one of them. One perhaps may have dealt\nwith the hero's exploits at the Danish court and another with his\nlast adventure, while in the scene between Beowulf and Hygelac it\nis possible that an older poem has been incorporated, more or less\ncomplete, in the text.[59]\n\nBut we have yet to take account of what is perhaps the most striking\nfeature of the poem, namely the fact that, though it abounds in\nexpressions of Christian sentiment, yet the customs and ceremonies to\nwhich it alludes are uniformly heathen. Among these we may mention\nthe funeral ship in v. 27 ff., the offerings at the shrines in v. 175\nf., the observation of the omens in v. 204 and the curious reference\nto hanging in v. 2444 ff. (cf. v. 2939 ff.), probably also the use\nof the boar on helmets (vv. 303 f., 1111 f., 1286, 1451 ff., 2152)\nand the burial of the treasure (v. 2233 ff.), together with the curse\nimprecated on the person who should disturb it (v. 3069 ff.). But most\nimportant of all are the descriptions of the disposal of the dead by\ncremation in vv. 1108 ff., 2124 ff., 3137 ff. In the long account\nof Beowulf's obsequies--beginning with the dying king's injunction\n(v. 2802 ff.) to construct for him a lofty barrow on the edge of the\ncliff, and ending with the scene of the twelve princes riding round the\nbarrow, proclaiming the dead man's exploits--we have the most detailed\ndescription of an early Teutonic funeral which has come down to us, and\none of which the accuracy is confirmed in every point by archaeological\nor contemporary literary evidence[60]. Such an account must have been\ncomposed within living memory of a time when ceremonies of this kind\nwere still actually in use.\n\nThe significance of these passages seems to me to have been altogether\nmisapprehended by recent writers. If the poem preserves its original\nform and is the work of a Christian, it is difficult to see why the\npoet should go out of his way in v. 175 ff. to represent the Danes as\noffering heathen sacrifices; for not long before he has introduced a\nsong of the Creation at the Danish court, and in the sequel Hrothgar is\nconstantly giving utterance to Christian sentiments. Again why should\nhe lay Beowulf himself to rest with heathen obsequies, described in\nall possible detail, when in his dying speeches (vv. 2739 ff., 2794\nff.[61]) the hero has been made to express his faith and gratitude to\nthe Almighty? On the other hand if the poem was originally a heathen\nwork these inconsistencies are perfectly natural. If it was to retain\nits place after the change of faith and to be recited in the presence\nof bishops or clergy, all references to actual heathen worship or\nbelief would of necessity have to be either accompanied by censure--as\nis the case in the homiletic verses following v. 175 ff.--or else\nsuppressed altogether, and their place taken by expressions in\naccordance with Christian doctrine. Hence it seems to me probable that\nsuch expressions are frequently in the nature of substitutions for\nobjectionable matter, rather than gratuitous additions; and in the same\nway I would account for the occasional survival of ideas which appear\nto be essentially heathen[62], though they are cloaked in Christian\nphraseology. But references to practices such as cremation which,\nthough heathen, had long ago passed out of use, would not excite the\nsame repugnance and consequently might be allowed to stand.\n\nIt may be urged[63] that cremation seems to have lingered on among the\nOld Saxons of the Continent until late in the eighth century. True:\nbut it is quite incredible that a Christian poet should borrow from\nthis quarter a method of funeral for his Christianised heroes. If the\ndescription of Beowulf's obsequies stood alone a bare possibility might\nbe conceded to the suggestion that it had once formed a poem by itself,\nunconnected with Beowulf, and based upon a traveller's story. But\ncremation is clearly regarded as the normal rite throughout the poem,\napart from the legendary story of Scyld. We have another description of\nit in the episode dealing with Finn (v. 1108 ff.), and above all there\nis the purely incidental reference in v. 2124 ff.: \"Yet when morning\ncame the knights of the Danes could not burn his (Aeschere's) lifeless\nform with fire, nor lay the man they loved on the pyre. She had carried\nthe body away,\" etc. Here the poet realises the significance[64] of the\nrite quite clearly and consequently notes that the inability of the\nDanes to carry it out added materially to their sorrow. In such a case\nthe possibility of Christian authorship seems to me to be definitely\nexcluded.\n\nOn the hypothesis that these descriptions had come down from the days\nof English heathenism all is easily explicable. At the time when the\npoem was Christianised it may very well not have been known that\nthe rite of cremation was still practised among the heathen of the\nContinent, and in later days the verses of the old poet would be\nhanded on in parrot fashion without their significance being generally\nunderstood. Well informed persons however, like Alcuin, who had\ntravelled abroad, perceived clearly enough that, however much coated\nover with Christian phraseology, the heroic poems were in reality of an\nessentially heathen character.\n\nNow cremation was widely prevalent in this country during the early\ndays of the Saxon invasion--a fact attested by numerous cemeteries\nespecially in the northern and midland counties, including the valley\nof the Thames. But it appears to have become a thing of the past when\nthe Roman missionaries arrived here; otherwise it is difficult to\naccount for the absence of any reference to the custom in the records\nwhich have come down to us. Indeed we may say with safety that it had\npassed out of general use, at least in the southern half of England,\nquite a generation before this time; for there are scarcely any traces\nof it to be found in those western districts which appear to have been\nconquered during the latter half of the sixth century. Consequently,\nif we are justified in believing that the descriptions of cremation\nceremonies contained in Beowulf date from a time when the practice was\nstill remembered, we must conclude that they were composed not later\nthan the third or fourth decade of the seventh century[65].\n\nBut it is not contended, so far as I am aware, by any scholar that the\naccount of Beowulf's obsequies belongs to the earlier parts of the\npoem. It is the final scene of the story, it is not contained in any\nspeech, and further it is of a thoroughly epic character and would\nbe quite out of place in a short lay. Hence, if the line of argument\nwhich we have been following is legitimate, we shall be forced to admit\nthat though the poem has undergone a fairly thorough revision in early\nChristian times, it must in the main have been in existence some time\nbefore the conversion. I do not mean to suggest that the 'revision' was\nentirely limited to the religious element. Other changes and additions\nmay have been made about the same time[66]. What I do mean is that\nthe great bulk of the poem must have been in existence--not merely as\na collection of lays or stories, but in full epic form--an appreciable\ntime before the middle of the seventh century.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe other heroic poems do not furnish us with any similar criteria for\nestimating the date of their composition, but there seems to be no\nvalid reason for doubting that they are quite as early. Two of them,\nDeor and Widsith, are expressed in the first person and lay claim to\nbeing of a remote antiquity. Deor says that he had been the bard of\nthe Heodeningas and that he had been displaced by a skilful minstrel\nnamed Heorrenda. Since in old Norse literature _Hia\u00f0ningar_ (i.e.\n_Heodeningas_) means 'He\u00f0inn and his men,'[67] and since Heorrenda can\nhardly be separated from the minstrel H\u00f4rand in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn, it would seem\nthat the poet claims to have been a contemporary of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni,\nwith whose story we have dealt briefly above (pp. 8 f., 16).\n\nWidsith is still more explicit. The poet states that he visited the\nGothic king Eormenric, who as we know died about 370. It is true\nthat incidentally he mentions that he had met with a number of other\nprinces, some of whom lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but the\nvisit to Eormenric is his main theme. Eormenric is of course one of\nthe most prominent figures of the Heroic Age, and it may be for this\nreason--as the type of a powerful king--that he is chosen for the\npoet's host and patron. But then it is by no means so easy to see why\nhe is associated with such an obscure person as Eadgils, prince of the\nMyrgingas. The suggestion that the poem is founded upon a tradition\nthat this Eadgils possessed a famous minstrel breaks down upon the\nname _Widsith_, which is obviously fictitious as we have seen (p. 44).\nIt appears to me that considerably less difficulty is involved in the\nhypothesis that the kernel of the poem[68] is really the work of an\nunknown bard of the fourth century, and that successive minstrels from\ntime to time have added the names of famous heroes with which they were\nacquainted[69]--a process to which the original plan of the poem may\nwell have offered inducement.\n\nHowever this may be neither of the poems shows any characteristics\nwhich suggest a later date than Beowulf. Both appear to be constructed\nin strophic form, a feature rare elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon poetry, while\nDeor also has a refrain, which is almost without parallel. Lastly, we\nhave seen that _Widsith_ occurs as a personal name, apparently in the\nseventh century, and that this presupposes the existence not only of\nthe poem itself but also of the introduction, which is clearly later.\n\nThe case of Waldhere stands somewhat apart from the others, since it\nhas been suggested that this is really a translation of a lost German\npoem, on which Ekkehard's Waltharius is also based. That the story\ncame from the Continent may of course be granted; but we have also to\nconsider when and in what form it was brought. The linguistic arguments\nwhich have been adduced in favour of the German origin of the poem\nare not now generally maintained. But it is further to be noticed\nthat the poet seems to have treated his subject very differently from\nEkkehard. The speeches, with which the fragments are entirely taken\nup, have nothing corresponding to them in the Latin poem, while the\ncharacterisation of the heroine is as unlike as it well could be.\nEkkehard represents her as a timid creature, but in the fragments she\ndisplays a spirit which may fairly be called martial. It is unwise to\nlay stress on agreements between Ekkehard and the fragments as against\nthe version of the story given in Thi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern. The less\ncomplicated form of the latter--in which Guthhere is omitted and Hagena\nrepresented as an officer of Attila, pursuing the fugitives--may be\ndue either to imperfect acquaintance with the story or, perhaps more\nprobably, to the conditions under which it had been preserved. We shall\nsee later that for a considerable period heroic poetry appears to have\nbeen entirely neglected by the higher classes in Germany; and it may\nbe accepted as generally true that when stories are preserved only by\nthe peasants complex situations tend to become simplified, while all\nexcept the most prominent characters drop out. As for the date at which\nthe story became known in England we may note that besides _Aetla_ and\n_Hagena_, which may come from other sources, _Waldhere_, _Hildegyth_\nand _Hereric_ were all names current during the seventh century. There\nseems therefore to be no adequate reason for believing Waldhere to have\nhad a different history from the other heroic poems.\n\nOn the whole, taking all the poems, including Beowulf, together, we may\nconclude with probability that they assumed substantially their present\nform[70] in the course of the seventh century. But if our reasoning\nwith regard to the composition of Beowulf is correct we shall have to\nrefer the first treatment of the subject to the sixth century, i.e.\nalmost if not quite to the Heroic Age itself. Deor and Widsith may\nquite possibly contain still older elements.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may now turn to the Old Norse poems. Here the data at our disposal\nare of a very different character, for the metrical evidence is said to\npreclude the possibility that any of the extant poems date from before\nthe ninth century. It may perhaps be questioned whether all of them are\nnecessarily new compositions since that time--whether certain of them\nmay not be old poems somewhat recast. To this question however we can\nhardly hope to obtain a satisfactory answer.\n\nThe fragmentary Ragnarsdr\u00e1pa of Bragi Boddason, who seems to have lived\nin the first half of the ninth century, is probably the earliest extant\npiece which refers to stories of the Heroic Age. In this poem we find\nallusions both to the story of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni and to the attack made\nupon I\u00f6rmunrekr by Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli. Thi\u00f3dolfr's Ynglingatal, perhaps\nhalf a century later, contains references to the story of Hagbar\u00f0r and\nSign\u00fd, as well as brief accounts of the Swedish kings \u00d3ttarr and A\u00f0ils,\nwho are mentioned in Beowulf (cf. p. 20). All these stories, except\nthat of \u00d3ttarr, are told also by Saxo, but in a somewhat different\nform, which points to their derivation from Danish rather than Norse\nsources[71].\n\nOn the other hand the stories of the V\u00f6lsungar, Sigmundr and Sigur\u00f0r,\nare not mentioned by any early Danish authority. The story of Sigur\u00f0r\nis generally supposed to have been introduced into Norway from Germany;\nand in some sense or other this would seem necessarily to be true,\nsince in the Northern version, as well as in the German, the scene\nis laid chiefly in the Rhineland. But it is apparently impossible\nto determine when and in what form the story was transmitted. We\nhave already noticed that there is archaeological evidence for a\nconsiderable amount of communication between Norway (not Denmark) and\nthe southern (Frisian) coasts of the North Sea during the seventh\nand eighth centuries, and this is clearly a factor which deserves to\nbe taken into account. Further, it is worth noting that, with the\nexception perhaps of _Atli_[72], the names all appear in regular\nNorthern form[73], as if they had been known from the earliest times,\ne.g. _Gunnarr_, _H\u00f6gni_, _Gi\u00faki_, _Bu\u00f0li_. This consideration, as far\nas it goes, certainly favours a very early date; but it is hardly\nconclusive[74].\n\nThe story of Sigmundr stands on a somewhat different footing. In the\nfirst place Sigemund (Sigmundr) himself is little more than a name in\nGerman tradition, while though _Welsung_ and _Sintarfizzilo_ occur\nas personal names, they are not connected in any way with the story\nof Siegfried. Again, in the Helgi poems, which contain no reference\nto Sigur\u00f0r, Sigmundr is connected with the Baltic, and this is still\nmore clearly the case with his son Helgi, who is unknown to the German\nstory. Thirdly, in Beowulf, which knows Sigemund and Fitela, though\nnot Sigur\u00f0r, the former is brought into juxtaposition, and apparently\nalso into comparison, with a Danish prince named Heremod. The same two\npersons are brought together also in the Old Norse poem Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0,\nwhile the H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l likewise seems to imply some connection between\nthem, as I have tried to show elsewhere[75]. Apart from the passages\nspecified this Herm\u00f3\u00f0r (Heremod) is apparently not mentioned in\nScandinavian literature, but the facts noted seem to indicate that\nthe two characters were connected in poetry before English and Danish\ntradition became separated, i.e. presumably in the sixth century.\n\nWe have seen that many of the persons mentioned in the main narrative\nof Beowulf were remembered also in Scandinavian tradition. But since\nthese persons are in all probability to be regarded as historical, it\nis hardly safe to infer the existence of ancient Scandinavian poems,\nunless the same incidents are related of them, which is generally not\nthe case. There is a rather striking verbal resemblance[76] between\nthe first speech of Wiglaf (Beow. 2633-60) and certain passages in\nBiarkam\u00e1l (especially Saxo's version), where Hialti is addressing\nBiarki; and this fact is the more noteworthy if Biarki is really to be\nidentified with Beowulf. But the words themselves are of a somewhat\ngeneral character and might have been used on other occasions. Again\nthere is a certain affinity[77] between the account of the dragon-fight\nin Beowulf and that of a similar incident related of Frotho I by Saxo\n(p. 38 f.); and here again a connection can be traced indirectly\nbetween the two heroes. But the story of Frotho seems really rather to\nresemble the account given in Beowulf of Sigemund's dragon-fight; so it\nmay be questioned whether the points of affinity between the two did\nnot originally form part of a standard description of incidents of this\nkind.\n\nA clearer case is that of the poems attributed by Saxo to Starcatherus,\nin which that warrior exhorts Ingellus to avenge his father. These\nare clearly to be connected with the speech of the old warrior to\nIngeld in Beowulf (vv. 2047-2056), though there is little verbal\nresemblance. Moreover we have seen (p. 41 f.) that in Alcuin's time\npoems dealing with Ingeld were known and probably popular in England.\nThe relationship of the passage in Beowulf to these may be compared\nwith that of another passage (vv. 1068-1159) to the fragment dealing\nwith Finn. The poems on Ingeld given by Saxo are traced by Prof.\nOlrik[78] to a Danish source; and there can be little doubt that his\nview is correct, as they share the characteristics exhibited by other\nstories which appear to come from the same quarter (cf. p. 111). Thus\nthe queen's name is not given and her brothers are described simply\nas sons of Suertingus. Further, the story is cut right away from the\nsurroundings in which we find it in Beowulf, and it may be that for\na time it survived in Denmark only in ballad form. Yet, however much\nchange it had undergone before it came under Saxo's treatment, there\ncan be little doubt, in view of the English evidence, that its origin\nis ultimately to be sought in heroic poetry, or at all events heroic\nnarrative, dating from the sixth century.\n\nLastly we must mention the story of Uffo's single combat, though,\nstrictly speaking, this is probably not of Danish origin. It was\ncertainly well known in England and there is good reason for believing\nthat its home is to be found in the district to which it refers,\ni.e. the neighbourhood of Angel, Slesvig and Rendsburg. I have tried\nelsewhere[79] to show that this story also rests on historical\nfoundations. But the details of the combat, as given by Saxo and Svend\nAagesen, and certain legendary features, such as the dumbness or\nsilence of the hero, which are present in both the Danish and English\nversions of the story, strongly favour the view that it was embodied\nin poetic form at a very early period. On the other hand there is\nnothing to show that such poems survived till Saxo's time. The story is\napparently unknown to all Norse authorities.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMany of the German poems which have come down to us are known to be\nderived, directly or indirectly, from earlier ones, but regarding the\nantiquity of the latter nothing can be stated with certainty. The\nHildebrandslied, which is the only extant piece of early poetry, goes\nback at all events to the eighth century. Further, the language[80]\nused by Einhard in describing the poems collected by Charlemagne (cf.\np. 5 f.) would scarcely be appropriate unless they were believed to be\nmore than a century old by that time. We may probably therefore refer\nthem at least to the seventh century.\n\nIt seems likely that some of the lost poems of the Langobardi were of\nstill greater antiquity. In the poem which celebrated their victory\nover the Vandals (cf. p. 10), a story with which we shall have to\ndeal more fully in a later chapter, a very prominent part appears to\nhave been played by the heathen gods. Such a piece can hardly have\nbeen composed after the end of the fifth century, at which time the\nLangobardi were already Christians.\n\nRegarding the antiquity of Gothic heroic poetry there can be no\nquestion, for Jordanes, our chief authority on this subject, wrote\nabout the middle of the sixth century, i.e. during the Heroic Age\nitself. We have already noticed (p. 37) that his account of Eormenric\nappears to be coloured by poetic tradition. But of the heroes whom\nhe enumerates (cap. 5) as celebrated in poetry, the only one of whom\nwe know anything, Vidigoia, is described as _Gothorum fortissimus_\nin a quotation (cap. 34) from Priscus, who lived about a century\nearlier[81]. There is good reason therefore for believing that the\nGoths possessed heroic poems as early as the first half of the fifth\ncentury.\n\nWe may now sum up briefly the results of our discussion. The heroic\npoetry of the Goths certainly belonged to the Heroic Age itself, and it\nis more than likely that certain Langobardic poems were nearly as old.\nSome heroic poems belonging to other German peoples may probably be\nreferred at least to the seventh century. The chief monument of English\nheroic poetry must be ascribed to the first half of that century, while\nsome of the other poems claim to be of greater antiquity. The lost\nheroic poetry of the Danes seems to have been occupied largely with the\nsame subjects as the English poems, and since the stories generally\nrefer to the Baltic we may reasonably infer that heroic poetry\nflourished in that region during the sixth century. On the whole then\nit seems probable that the development of heroic poetry began in the\nHeroic Age itself, not only among the Goths but throughout the greater\npart of the Teutonic world.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[33] _Verba Dei legantur in sacerdotali conuiuio. ibi decet lectorem\naudiri, non citharistam; sermones patrum, non carmina gentilium. quid\nHinieldus cum Christo? angusta est domus; utrosque tenere non poterit.\nnon uult rex coelestis cum paganis et perditis nominetenus regibus\ncommunionem habere, quia rex ille aeternus regnat in coelo, ille\npaganus perditus plangit in inferno. uoces legentium audiri in domibus\ntuis, non ridentium turuam in plateis._ Mon. Germ., Epist. Carol. II\n124; cf. O. J\u00e4nicke, ZfdA. XV 314.\n\n[34] The names Grendel, Cain, Abel, Alexandreas and Casere are not\nincluded.\n\n[35] For the figures and the method of calculation see Note I.\n\n[36] But open to very serious objections, as has been shown by Prof. W.\nW. Lawrence in the _Publications of the Modern Language Association of\nAmerica_, XXIV 251 ff.\n\n[37] Compound names containing _w\u012bd-_ or _-s\u012b\u00fe_ (_-sin\u00fe-_) are used in\nother Teutonic languages; but the latter apparently does not occur in\nEngland, while the former is extremely rare.\n\n[38] In contrast with the body of the poem (vv. 10-134) it is\nnon-strophic, after the general fashion of Anglo-Saxon poetry.\nOriginally when the poem was recited it may have been introduced with\na short explanation in prose, such as we find e.g. in R\u00edgsm\u00e1l or\nAtlakvi\u00f0a. The epilogue (vv. 135-143), which is likewise non-strophic,\nmay belong to the same stratum.\n\n[39] Especially the regular use of unsyncopated forms such as 3 sg.\n_onwinde\u00f0_, past part. _onsended_.\n\n[40] The statistics for these poems are as follows: Juliana 27:3,\nChrist (II) 28:3, Elene 66:9, Guthlac (A) 42:6, Dream of the Cross\n10:5, Exodus 10:14, Beowulf 13:65; see Brandl, _S.-B. d. Akad. der\nWiss. zu Berlin_, 1905, p. 718 f.\n\n[41] Cf. Brandl, _l.c._ (p. 721 ff.).\n\n[42] Hist. Eccl., IV 24: _canebat autem de creatione mundi et origine\nhumani generis et tota genesis historia, de egressu Israel ex Aegypto\net ingressu in terram repromissionis, de aliis plurimis sacrae\nscripturae historiis, de incarnatione dominica, passione, resurrectione\net ascensione in caelum, de Spiritus Sancti aduentu et apostolorum\ndoctrina. item de terrore futuri iudicii et horrore poenae gehennalis\nac dulcedine regni caelestis multa carmina faciebat; sed et perplura de\nbeneficiis et iudiciis diuinis, etc._ Prof. Brandl (_Grundr._, II 1028)\nholds that the reference is to lyric poems throughout. But is this\ninterpretation really necessary?\n\n[43] On this date see Note II.\n\n[44] For a brief discussion of this question see Note III.\n\n[45] A few examples are given in the following chapter.\n\n[46] vv. 27, 72, 101, 570, 670, 706, 711, 756 (?), 786, 788, 790, 801,\n806, 811, 852, 940, 967, 975, 986 (?), 1201, 1255, 1379, 1626, 1658,\n1680, 1682, 2088, 2182, 2216 (?), 2276 (?), 2469, 2650, 3083 (?).\n\n[47] vv. 168 f. (?), 227 f., 440 f., 478 f., 588 f., 625 f., 945 f.,\n955 f., 1314 f., 1397 f., 1778 f., 1841 f., 1997 f., 2819 f., 2874 f.,\n3108 f.\n\n[48] vv. 13-17, 90-8, 106-14, 316-8, 381-4, 665-7 (?), 685-7, 696-702,\n928-31, 977-9, 1056-62, 1261-5, 1271-6, 1553-6, 1609-11, 1661-4,\n1688-93, 1716-8, 2291-3, 2329-31, 2341-3 (?), 2741-3, 2794-7, 2855-9,\n3054-7, 3069-73.\n\n[49] vv. 588 f., 977-9. 2741-3. 2819 f.\n\n[50] It is perhaps worth noting that in v. 2186 the expression _dryhten\nwereda_ is used of Hygelac. Elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon poetry this phrase\nis applied only to the Deity.\n\n[51] Clark Hall, _Beowulf_, p. xxviii.\n\n[52] If there is Celtic influence at all it is more probably Welsh.\n\n[53] Cf. p. 46, note, where the passage is quoted in full.\n\n[54] The amount of freedom differs of course greatly from case to case\n(cf. Note IV, p. 101 ff.); but it is only in communities which have\nelaborated the art of minstrelsy to a very high degree that the form of\nwords can become absolutely stereotyped.\n\n[55] _Beowulf_ (1889), pp. 110-160.\n\n[56] _Quellen und Forschungen_, LXII (1888); summarised p. 242 ff.\n\n[57] _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 93, note.\n\n[58] The references quoted on p. 41 ff. preclude the possibility that\nthese stories were first acquired from the Danes, when the latter again\nbecame known in this country about the close of the eighth century.\n\n[59] A different view is taken by Sch\u00fccking, _Beowulfs R\u00fcckkehr_\n(Studien zur engl. Philologie, XXI), p. 65 ff.\n\n[60] We may refer especially to the account of Attila's funeral given\nby Jordanes, cap. 49 (from Priscus).\n\n[61] Apart from certain expressions the general tone of these speeches,\nespecially the last words of all (v. 2813 ff.), is scarcely Christian;\nbut they contain nothing which is obviously opposed to Christian\ndoctrine.\n\n[62] E.g. in the imprecation, v. 3069 ff. The imprecatory formulae of\ncharters can scarcely be regarded as analogous.\n\n[63] Cf. Brandl, _op. cit._, p. 1003.\n\n[64] The same idea is frequently expressed in the Homeric poems, e.g.\nIl. VII 79 f., XXII 342 f., XXIII 75 f., XXIV 37 f., Od. XI 71 ff., etc.\n\n[65] This date does not depend in any way on the question where the\npoem originated. Cremation may possibly have lingered in Northumbria\nlonger than elsewhere; but that kingdom seems to have become entirely\nChristian between 626 and 642.\n\n[66] E.g. possibly some of the elegiac passages (e.g. vv. 2236-2270,\n2450-2464), which show a certain resemblance to such poems as the Ruin\nand the Wanderer.\n\n[67] The name _Hegelinge_ in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn is probably a corruption of\n_Hetelinge_ (i.e. _Heodeningas_).\n\n[68] Presumably including vv. 88-108; but I am not prepared to suggest\nan elaborate analysis of the poem.\n\n[69] These lists are perhaps derived in part from mnemonic\ncatalogues--'inventories' of the stories known to the minstrels who\ncomposed them. Metrical catalogues of this kind are said to be in use\namong Servian minstrels at the present day; cf. Krauss, _Slavische\nVolkforschungen_, p. 186 ff., where a specimen is given.\n\n[70] Waldhere, Deor and Widsith all contain 'Christian' passages,\nlike Beowulf. The interpolations in Widsith (e.g. vv. 15 f., 82 ff.)\nappear to have been made by some one who possessed a certain amount of\nerudition; but there is no need to attribute them to a different period.\n\n[71] Cf. Olrik, _Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie_, p. 132.\n\n[72] The name appears to have been quite common in the North during the\nViking Age; yet the apparent absence of umlaut suggests derivation from\na (Frisian?) form corresponding to the Ang.-Sax. _Aetla_ (cf. _Aecci_,\n_Aeddi_ beside _Acca_, _Adda_).\n\n[73] In contrast (e.g.) with _K\u00fbdr\u00fbn_, which clearly shows its foreign\norigin (cf. p. 34).\n\n[74] Such names may have been current before, though their frequent\noccurrence is no proof of this and may be due to the popularity of the\nheroic poems. It is perhaps worth noting that alliteration is shown by\ncertain names which are generally believed to have been introduced into\nthe story in Norway or Iceland, e.g. _Oddr\u00fan_, _Erpr_, _Eitill_ with\n_Atli_, _Giaflaug_, _Gullr\u00f6nd_ (_Gu\u00f0r\u00fan_?) with _Giuki_ and _Gunnarr_.\nIf we may judge from the genealogies in Landn\u00e1mab\u00f3k and elsewhere the\nprinciple of alliteration seems to have been generally given up in\nfamily names before the ninth century.\n\n[75] _The Cult of Othin_, p. 51 f.\n\n[76] Cf. Bugge, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, XII 45 ff.\n\n[77] Cf. Sievers, _Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Ber._ 1895, p. 180 ff.\n\n[78] _Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie_, pp. 18 ff., 132.\n\n[79] _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 118 ff.\n\n[80] _Item barbara et antiquissima carmina, quibus ueterum regum actus\net bella canebantur, scripsit memoriaeque mandauit_ (Vita Caroli Magni,\ncap. 29).\n\n[81] Cassiodorus (_Var._ VIII 9) states that the Gothic king\nGensimundus, who according to Jordanes (cap. 48) reigned shortly\nafter Eormenric's death, was widely celebrated in poetry (_toto orbe\ncantabilis_); but his name is preserved only in Gothic records.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE I. THE USE OF HEROIC NAMES IN ENGLAND.\n\n\nThe distribution of heroic names in English historical documents is\nas follows. The Liber Vitae contains 35 (37), of which nine (eleven)\nare peculiar to that work[82]. Of those which occur in other documents\n29[83] belong to persons born apparently before 700, six to such\npersons only, 14 or 15[84] to persons born between 700 and 800, two to\nsuch persons only, and 22[85] to persons born after 800, four to such\npersons only. It must be remembered that, apart from the Liber Vitae,\nthe materials for the ninth and tenth centuries are much more abundant\nthan those for earlier times.\n\nIn the Liber Vitae itself it is possible within certain limits to\ndistinguish between persons of early and later date. Investigations in\nthe lists of kings, queens and abbots have shown that they are arranged\nchronologically, and it is only reasonable therefore to expect that the\nsame is true of the much longer lists of clerics and monks. A brief\nexamination of the names will make it clear that such is actually the\ncase. Some modernisms of language, such as _-ferth_ for _-frith_, or\nof orthography, such as _-ht-_ for _-ct-_, are practically confined\nto the last parts of the lists, which may be by later hands[86]. But\neven within the parts certainly written by the first scribe archaic\nforms such as _-iu-_ for _-io-_ are more frequent at the beginning of\nthe lists than later; so also occasional _-b-_ for _-f-_. Above all\nwe may note the uncompounded names in _-i_, a type common in early\nAnglo-Saxon, but practically extinct after the eighth century. Fol. 24,\nthe first in the clerics' list, contains eleven such names, while fol.\n30 contains none; fol. 34, the first in the monks' list, has eight,\nwhile fol. 38 has only one.\n\nNow we shall probably be well within the mark if we assume that one\nfifth of the names in each list[87] belong to persons born in the\nseventh century. On this basis we find that of the 35 (37) heroic\nnames which occur in the Liber Vitae nine (ten) are limited to persons\nof the seventh century[88], and twelve (thirteen) to persons of the\neighth[89]. The total number of names in each century (cf. p. 43) may\nbe obtained by comparing the evidence of the Liber Vitae with that of\nthe other documents[90].\n\nThe fact that so many heroic names occur in the Liber Vitae has led\nseveral writers to conclude that the true home of English heroic\npoetry was in the north. But no such inference is really justified\nby the evidence. The number of personal names recorded for the south\nof England during the sixth and seventh centuries is very small; yet\nit is only here that we meet with persons called Eormenric, Hoc and\nHagena--names which belong to quite different cycles of story. Moreover\nout of the 37 heroic names preserved in the Liber Vitae no less than\n28 occur in place-names in various parts of England. The frequence\ntherefore of heroic names in the Liber Vitae is to be attributed\nin part to the great abundance of the material and in part to its\ncomparatively early date.\n\nIncluding the evidence of the Liber Vitae there are fifteen heroic\nnames which seem to be borne only by persons of the eighth century or\nlater times. Eight of these however occur also in place names[91]. Of\nthe remaining seven[92] all except one or possibly two[93] make their\nappearance during the eighth century. On the other hand it has already\nbeen mentioned that not less than nineteen heroic names[94] occur only\nin local nomenclature.\n\nWe have still to mention a few heroic names which are not found in the\nextant remains of Anglo-Saxon poetry. Theodhere (Diether) is known only\nfrom the sixth century, Hild, Herding, Iuring, Omoling only from the\nseventh, Hildegyth and Blaedla from the seventh and eighth, Wulfheard\nfrom all periods, Ecga only from the eighth century, Ecgheard from\nthe eighth and ninth, Sigesteb only from the ninth. Hild, Wulfheard\nand Ecga are found also in place-names. In some of these cases, e.g.\nin that of Hildegyth, the non-occurrence of the name in the poems is\nclearly due to mere accident; but it would scarcely be safe to assume\nthat all these characters were celebrated in Anglo-Saxon poetry.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[82] 37 (eleven), if we admit the emendation of the corrupt forms\n_Vychga_ and _Vurmeri_ to _Wydiga_ (Widia, Wudga) and _Vyrmheri_\n(Wyrmhere). See the Addenda.\n\n[83] Ecglaf, Eadgils, Eomaer, *Eormenric, Frod(a), Hereric, *Hoc,\n*Hrothmund, Ingeld, Offa, Oslaf, Sigemund, *Aehha, Sigeferth, Aetla,\n*Hagena, Theodric, Waldhere, Becca, Witta, Wada, Oswine, Sigehere,\n*Sceafthere, Alewih, Aelfwine, Eadwine, Wulfhere, Frithuric; perhaps\nalso Herebald. The asterisk denotes names limited to persons of the\nsixth and seventh centuries.\n\n[84] Eadgils, Eanmund, Heardred, Hygelac, Ingeld, Offa, Wermund,\nWeohstan, Wiglaf, Wada, *Scilling, Oswine, Sigehere, *Gislhere (perhaps\nEomaer).\n\n[85] *Aelfhere, Ecglaf, Eanmund, Heremod, Offa, Sigemund, Wermund,\nWeohstan, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Garwulf, *Ordlaf, Sigeferth, Waldhere,\nBecca, Wada, *Hun, *Hringwald, Aelfwine, Eadwine, Wulfhere, Frithuric\n(possibly also Deor).\n\n[86] Only the earlier lists, those printed in Sweet's _Oldest English\nTexts_, p. 154 ff., are taken into account.\n\n[87] Lines 159-192 and 332-362 in Sweet's text.\n\n[88] \u2020Beowulf, \u2020Billing, \u2020Folcwald, Frod, Heremod, Hereric, Oslaf,\n\u2020Widsith, Alewih (\u2020Widia?). Names marked with a dagger are confined to\nthe Liber Vitae.\n\n[89] Eadgils, \u2020Hildeburg, \u2020Hrothwulf, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Garwulf, Aetla,\nWitta, \u2020Heathuric, Sigeferth, Wulfhere, Frithuric (\u2020Wyrmhere?). The\nfollowing names are found both in the early and late parts of the\nlists: Eanmund, \u2020Hama, Heardred, Hygelac, Ingeld, Offa, Sigemund,\nWermund, Theodric, Wada, Aelfwine, Eadwine, \u2020Aegelmund; perhaps also\nHerebald, if the abbot of this name is to be identified with the one\nmentioned by Bede (_H. E._ V 6).\n\n[90] For the details see the preceding notes.\n\n[91] Hildeburg, Hrothwulf, Wiglaf, Wulfgar, Ordlaf, Hun, Hringwald,\nGislhere.\n\n[92] Aelfhere, Weohstan, Garwulf, Scilling, Heathuric, Wyrmhere (?),\nDior.\n\n[93] Aelfhere and Dior. The latter (in the form _Diar_) occurs only\nonce (Birch, _Cart. Sax._ 497) and may be a mistake for Diara (_ib._\n507). The name Diora need not be of heroic origin; it may be an\nabbreviation from such names as Diorwald, Diornoth.\n\n[94] Breca, Finn, Fitela, Hengest, Hnaef, Hrethel, Scyld, Weland,\nGuthhere, Geat, Gifeca, Heoden, Helm, Wald, Beaduca, Frithla, Secca,\nGifeca--to which we may add Waelse in Walsingaham. Widia is also to\nbe added, if it is not allowed for the Liber Vitae. For the list of\nplace-names (not the personal names) I am dependent upon Binz, _Beitr._\nXX 141-223.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE II. ON THE DATING OF CERTAIN SOUND-CHANGES IN ANGLO-SAXON.\n\n\nIn my _Studies in Old English_[95], published in 1899, I endeavoured\nto formulate a scheme for dating approximately the chief sound-changes\nwhich took place in English during the first few centuries after the\ninvasion of Britain. In the course of these investigations I was led\nto the following conclusions (pp. 117, 253 ff.): i. that 'palatal\numlaut' in Northumbrian and the dialect of the Vespasian Psalter took\nplace before 650; ii. that the change from _\u01e3_ to _\u0113_ (in all dialects\nexcept West Saxon) was in operation about 650-680; iii. that the loss\nof intersonantal _h_ (in all dialects) belongs to the same period or a\nlittle later; iv. that contraction through loss of intervocalic _h_ may\nbe dated roughly between 680-710; v. that the loss of final _-u_ after\nlong syllables and in words of the form \u23d1\u23d1\u23d1 took place in all dialects\nat a time approximately contemporaneous with the operation of palatal\numlaut in Northumbrian (i.e. before 650).\n\nProf. Morsbach in his paper _Zur Datierung des Beowulfepos_[96] has\ndealt with several of the same problems and come to conclusions which\ndiffer widely from those at which I arrived. The chief differences are\nas follows: i. that after a long syllable which bore the chief accent\n_-u_ was not lost before the end of the seventh century, though after\na long 'nebentonig' syllable the loss was somewhat earlier (p. 261\nf.); ii. that intervocalic _h_ was lost in Kentish by about 680, but\nin Mercian and Northumbrian the same change cannot be shown to have\ntaken place before about 700 (p. 264); iii. that postconsonantal _h_\n(before vowels) was retained in Kentish in 679; its loss, at least in\nMercian and Northumbrian, may be dated about 700, but after the loss of\n_-u_ (p. 265). In summarising the results of his discussion (p. 273)\nhe gives \"about 700\" for the loss of postconsonantal _h_ and \"shortly\nbefore 700\" for the loss of _-u_. Incidentally he follows B\u00fclbring\n(_Elementarbuch_, \u00a7\u00a7 146, 528) in dating the origin of _\u0113_ (from 'West\nGerm.' _\u0101_) before the breaking, and in placing the loss of _h_ before\n_l_ (in _neolaecan_) anterior to the operation of 'palatal umlaut'\n(monophthongisation).\n\nThe importance of this discussion for our present purpose[97] lies\nin the dates proposed for the loss of _-u_ and of postconsonantal _h_.\nProf. Morsbach concludes that Beowulf cannot have been composed before\n700, since it contains a number of half-verses which would have been\nmetrically impossible before the operation of these changes, e.g.\n_ofer fealone flod(u)_, _to widan feor(h)e_. I have already expressed\nscepticism as to whether such inferences are really justifiable. This\napplies more particularly to the verses affected by the question of\npostconsonantal _h_, which are quite few in number. The date which\nProf. Morsbach himself (p. 274) proposes for the composition of Beowulf\nis 700-730. He finds no difficulty in reconciling this with the\nstatistics (given above, p. 45) for the use of the article. This seems\nto me rather strange; yet the opinion of a scholar who stands in such\ndeservedly high estimation cannot lightly be disregarded.\n\nNow let us examine the evidence on which these conclusions are based.\nFirst it will be convenient to take the loss of _h_. Prof. Morsbach\nholds that in Kentish intervocalic _h_ was lost before postconsonantal\n_h_. The evidence is derived from a single charter issued by King\nHlothhere in 679 (Birch, _Cart. Sax._ 45), which contains the\nplace-name _Vuestan ae_ beside the personal name _Velhisci_ (Latin\nGen.). But surely conclusions of this kind are admissible only when\na number of examples can be adduced. On the same principle we might\nargue from the name _Irminredi_ (in the same charter) that the change\n_\u01e3_ > _\u0113_ had taken place and also from the name _Aedilmaeri_ (again\nin the same charter) that it had not. And what should we do with the\nearliest East Saxon charter (Birch, 81), in which the grantor is called\nboth _Oedelraedus_ and _Ho(di)lredus_? Again, it is clear that Bede\nwrote his own name _Baeda_; but will anyone venture to hold that this\nrepresents the current pronunciation of his name in 731--or indeed for\nsome half a century earlier? In personal names we must clearly allow\nfor traditional orthography. The form _Irminredi_ may no doubt be used\nas evidence for the change _\u01e3_ > _\u0113_, and similarly the form _Vuestan\nae_ may be used as evidence for the loss of _h_. But forms, especially\npersonal names, like _Velhisci_ and _Aedilmaeri_, which must long\nhave been in use, may very well show an antiquated orthography--one\nwhich correctly represented the pronunciation of thirty or forty years\npreviously. A single instance of such a kind is totally insufficient\nground for supposing that the Kentish dialect treated postconsonantal\nand intervocalic _h_ differently.\n\nNext we must consider the date given for the loss of _h_ in Mercian\nand Northumbrian (p. 263 f.). I find some difficulty here in\nfollowing Prof. Morsbach's line of argument. In Northumbrian there\nis, admittedly, no evidence at all for the preservation of _h_, while\ncases of its omission are numerous in Bede's History (written in 731),\nin addition to one or two instances in probably earlier authorities.\nFor Mercian[98] we are dependent on the Epinal, Erfurt and Corpus\nglossaries, the archetype of which is placed before 700 by Prof.\nMorsbach. In my _Studies_, p. 232, I came to the conclusion that\nin this archetype the cases of retention and omission of _h_ were\nprobably about equal in number. Prof. Morsbach replies that there is\nno necessity for such a conclusion, since all the extant glossaries\nthemselves date from times when _h_ was already lost. He himself\ndecides[99] against the loss of _h_ in the archetype for two reasons:\n(1) because postconsonantal and intervocalic _h_ are treated alike in\nthe glossaries and the former was still retained in Kentish when the\narchetype was written[100]; (2) because the assumption of such an early\ndate for the loss of _h_ would be incompatible with his own date for\nthe loss of _-u_. The first of these arguments, it will be seen, rests\nupon the dating of the loss of postconsonantal _h_ in Kentish, on which\nenough has been said above. The second depends upon a hypothesis which\nwe shall have to consider presently.\n\nMy reason for concluding that the loss of _h_ occurred in the archetype\nwas that in at least eight entries (probably several more) all three\nglossaries agree in showing forms without _h_. It is to be remembered\nthat in these glossaries we are dealing not with independent documents\nbut with copies made, more or less mechanically, from one original.\nThis remark applies of course much more to Epinal and Erfurt than to\nCorpus; for in the latter the materials have been rearranged, as well\nas augmented from other sources, while incidentally the forms have been\nmodernised to a considerable extent. In Epinal such modernisation is\nnot unknown, but it is restricted within very narrow limits, as may be\nseen from the use of _b_ and _f_[101]. Further, it is to be remarked\nthat we have no ground for assuming the language of the archetype\nitself to have been consistent. The occurrence of numerous Dative\nforms and of expressions containing more than one word (e.g. _per\nanticipationem_--_\u00feorch obst_) shows that the materials were derived\nlargely from glosses in books, just as in the Leiden glossary[102].\nMany of these glosses may have been written a generation or more\nearlier than the compilation of the archetype glossary. Whoever bears\nthese facts in mind and at the same time compares the evidence for\nforms with and without _h_ with that for _f_ and _b_ will, I think,\nbe forced to the conclusion that the forms with _h_ do not represent\nthe pronunciation of the compiler of the archetype, but that they were\ntaken over by him from earlier sources.\n\nNow we may take the evidence for the proposed date of the loss of\n_-u_. After enumerating (p. 253 ff.) a list of cases which have been\nsuggested by various scholars Prof. Morsbach comes to the conclusion\nthat the only certain example of a form in which _-u_ is retained[103]\nis the word _flodu_ in the inscription on the Franks casket. As the\nwhole theory largely depends on the value attached to this form we must\nconsider it carefully. In my _Studies_, p. 156, I suggested that it\nshould be regarded as an archaism and at the same time pointed out that\n_-u_ is lost in another word (_unneg_) in the same inscription. Prof.\nMorsbach rejects this explanation of _unneg_, which he connects,\nrightly, I think now, with O. Sax. _nah_. But this form can come\nperfectly well from *_n\u0101h(w)u_ (earlier *_n\u0113hw\u014d_), if not from *_n\u0101hwa_\n(cf. Goth. _nehwa_, _nehw_). That Ang.-Sax. _neah_, _neh_ has lost\nan _u_-sound is, I contend, shown not only by the Gothic forms, but\nalso by _neolaecan_ and _neowest_ (cf. Lind, _genehwa\u00fe_, etc.). Prof.\nMorsbach rejects my explanation of these forms also and adopts that\nof Prof. B\u00fclbring, as stated above. But the latter is untenable; for\nif _\u0113_ (from _\u0101_) had come into existence before the operation of\nbreaking, we should never find forms with _ae_, which as a matter\nof fact are fairly common in the earliest texts of all dialects. In\nparticular we may note that the three extant coins of the Mercian king\nAethelred (675-704) all have _-r\u00e6d_. Hence the change _\u01e3_ > _\u0113_ can\nhardly have taken place much before 650.\n\nApart from _unneg_[104], there are three forms on the recently\ndiscovered right side of the casket which may show loss of _-u_. Prof.\nNapier (_An English Miscellany_, p. 375 f.) is inclined to regard the\nforms _s\u00e6r_ and _d\u0153n_ (?), if not also _hos_, as Nom. sg. fem. But the\ninterpretation of this part of the inscription is still uncertain in\nmany details.\n\nI confess that since the discovery of the new side I am less inclined\nto regard the form _flodu_ as an archaism than as a mere blunder. Even\nin the more intelligible parts of the inscription we find a number of\nforms which present serious difficulty: _Romwalus_, _Reumwalus_[105],\n_gasric_, _Giu\u00feeasu_. The last of these still seems to me to present\nthe best illustration of _flodu_. If the one is due to the loss of\nsome letters--e.g. _su_ for _su(m\u00e6)_--the same may be the case with\nthe other[106]. At all events an inscription which presents so many\ndifficulties cannot be regarded as a safe authority on which to base a\nscheme for the chronology of sound-changes.\n\nThe only other instance of _-u_ on which Prof. Morsbach lays any\nweight is the form _aetgaru_ in the Erfurt glossary. He speaks of\nit as 'nicht unwahrscheinlich' (p. 257), though 'fraglich' (p. 264).\nMany scholars cite it as an example of_-u_ without reserve. Now in\norder to form a just estimate of the value of any form which occurs\nin the glossaries it is obviously necessary to take it in connection\nwith the forms which the other texts show in the same entry. The entry\nin question (_framea_--_aetgaru_) occurs in the Epinal and Corpus\nglossaries, as well as in that of Erfurt, though the two former have\n_aetgaeru_ (_\u00e6tgaeru_) for _aetgaru_. There can be no doubt that the\nrelationship between the three glossaries is as follows:\n\n x (Arch. I)\n |\n |--------------------|\n | |\n y (Arch. II) |\n | |\n |--------------| |\n | | |\n Epinal Erfurt Corpus\n\nthough we do not know exactly how many intermediate stages lie between\nthe extant texts and the original archetype. It will be seen that the\nquestion at issue is whether the Erfurt glossary or the other two have\nkept the original form--for if the archetype had contained both forms\nwe may assume that some trace of the double entry would have been\npreserved (as in other cases). Now the Erfurt glossary is the latest of\nthe three, it is the work of a foreign scribe and it is very carelessly\ncopied. Moreover, no letter or combination of letters has suffered more\nthan _ae_. Most usually this combination has been reduced to _e_; but\nthe loss of _e_ is not infrequent, e.g. _smal_, _hrad_, _nacthegelae_.\nIn view of these facts it is unintelligible to me how anyone can\nuphold the evidence of the Erfurt glossary against the other two. But\nin this case it is used to prove the existence of an archaic form for\nwhich none of the glossaries elsewhere present a parallel. Lastly, we\nmay remark that though it is frequently assumed that the word _gar_\nwas an _u_-stem (*_gaizu-_) no evidence worth consideration has ever\nbeen adduced to prove it[107]. On all grounds therefore we are brought\nto the conclusion that the evidence for the preservation of _-u_ in\n_aetgaru_ is not merely open to question but entirely worthless.\n\nWe must now notice certain early documents in which _-u_ is clearly\nlost. Prof. Morsbach mentions the form _felt_ in the earliest East\nSaxon charter (Birch, 81), which dates from 692-3. Here then _-u_ was\nlost before the date in question[108]. But we can get back further\nthan this, for the place mentioned is called _Vuidmundes felt_. Some\nconsiderable time must have elapsed after the loss of _-u_ before a\nnoun, even a proper name, could change its inflection and adopt the\nendings of _a_-stems.\n\nNext let us take the Northumbrian evidence. The form _-gar_ on the\nBewcastle column can prove nothing. In the same inscription however we\nmay find an example in _Cyniburug_; for in view of _hnutu_ etc. it is\nprobable that consonantal stems used what was originally the Accus.\nsg. form also for the Nom. sg. (as in Old Norse). I cannot see any\nprobability in the suggestion that this monument may date from some\nconsiderable time after 670[109], if it has been rightly interpreted.\n\nMore important is the fact that no example of _-u_ after a long\nsyllable is preserved in Bede's Ecclesiastical History. It is to\nbe observed that Bede seems to have scrupulously followed the\northographical peculiarities of the documents which he used. Thus\nin Papal letters dating from the first half of the seventh century\nwe find such forms as _Adilbercto_, _Audubaldi_ which are not used\nelsewhere in the work[110]. Now in the record of the proceedings at\nthe Council of Hertford in 673, which is quoted in IV 5, we find the\nforms _Herutford_, _Vilfrid_, _Vynfrid_, _Hrofaescaestir_; and in the\nsimilar record for the Council of Hatfield in 680, quoted in IV 17,\nwe find the form _Haethfelth_. If_-u_ had not been lost by this time\nthe forms used must have been _-fordu_ or _-fordus_, _Vilfridu(s)_,\netc., and it is most unlikely, in view of Bede's practice elsewhere,\nthat he would have altered them. As a matter of fact the latter of\nthese documents contains two forms--_Hymbronensium_ (or _Humbr-_) and\n_Estranglorum_--which are not used elsewhere by Bede. Again, the same\nauthor almost always writes the name of the Northumbrian king Ecgfrith\n(r. 671-685) as _Ecgfrid_ (in the Nom.). That this represents the\ncontemporary orthography is shown by a coin of that king which bears\nthe legend _Ecgfrid rex_.\n\nBut further, there is a whole series of names, much used in\nNorthumbria, which have as their second element _-hae\u00fe_ from earlier\n_-ha\u00feu_ (e.g. _Eadhaed_). At the time when _-u_ was lost here the\nchange _a_ > _\u00e6_ was clearly still operative. Will anyone suggest that\nthis was the case after the middle of the seventh century? Again, it\ncan hardly be doubted that the form _Osuiu_, if not also _Osuald_,\nrepresents the pronunciation[111] current in the time of that king. In\nBede's History, III 29, we have extracts from a Papal letter addressed\nto _Osuiu_ (v. l. _Osuio_) _regi Saxonum_. The form _os-_ can scarcely\nhave become current in compounds before _-u_ was lost in the Nom.,\nAccus. sg.\n\nIt is surely unnecessary to enter into further details. We have seen\nthat practically the whole evidence for the proposed chronology\nconsists of two forms, _Velhisci_ and _flodu_, one of which is\nincapable of proving what it is meant to prove, while the other is of\nexceedingly doubtful value; and on the other hand that this chronology\nhas opposed to it a large number of forms in the glossaries, in\ncharters and in early Northumbrian authorities of various kinds. Now\nlet us consider the various sound-changes in relation to one another.\n\nIt is admitted, and necessarily so, that the loss of _-u_ took place\nbefore the loss of _h_. For the sake of convenience we may apply the\nterms 'Period I' to times anterior to the loss of _-u_ and 'Period\nII' to the interval between the two changes. From neither of these\nperiods have we any texts surviving, unless we are to reckon the\ninscription on the Franks casket to Period I. Our earliest charters,\nand apparently also the lost archetype of the glossaries, were composed\nat a later time ('Period III') when _h_ was no longer pronounced,\nthough doubtless often written. But before the date of the earliest\nextant glossary (Epinal) a further change or changes had taken place\nwhich brought about the confusion of original _\u0180_ and _f_. It is clear\nfrom a comparison of the glossaries that this confusion was later than\nthe loss of _h_ and also that it was almost, if not entirely, unknown\nto the archetype. So also in Northumbrian. In Bede's History we have\nno instance of _h_ preserved in an English word, whereas examples of\nits omission are numerous. On the other hand it is clear that Bede\nusually retained the distinction between _b_ (i.e. _\u0180_) and _f_,\nalthough the latter has already largely encroached on the former in\nthe Moore MS.[112] We may therefore constitute two subdivisions of the\nperiod subsequent to the loss of _h_, namely 'Period III' prior to the\nconfusion of _\u0180_ and _f_ and 'Period IV' subsequent to this confusion.\nNow we can see clearly where to date the Franks casket, for it shows\nconfusion of _\u0180_ and _f_ in _wylif_--according to Prof. Morsbach also\nin _sefu_. It belongs therefore not to Period I but to Period IV.\n\nAny attempt to fix an absolute chronology is of course rendered\ndifficult by the absence of very early texts. We may probably assume\nthat Period IV begins more or less about 700. The Kentish charter\nof 679 falls in Period III. Now when _-u_ was lost, _h_ (whether\nintervocalic or postconsonantal) must have been a spirant--a fact which\nProf. Morsbach seems to have entirely ignored. It is quite incredible\nthat only a few years should elapse between that stage and the total\nloss of intervocalic _h_ seen in the charter. The corresponding period\nin Germany lasted centuries, and I cannot conceive how the transition\ncan have been accomplished anywhere in less than half a century. I\nconclude therefore that the dates which I gave in my Studies were\napproximately correct. If there was an error it was in putting some\nof the changes slightly too late. I have little hesitation now in\nexpressing my opinion that the loss of _-u_ took place not later than\nthe second or third decade of the seventh century.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[95] _Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society_, Vol. IV,\nPart II. The page-references are to the figures in the outer corners.\n\n[96] _Nachrichten von der K\u00f6nigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu\nG\u00f6ttingen_, 1906, pp. 251-277.\n\n[97] Prof. Morsbach's paper raises a number of questions besides those\nmentioned above. But I am obliged here to confine my attention to those\nwhich have a bearing on the dating of Beowulf.\n\n[98] The application of this term to the Epinal and Erfurt glossaries\n(or the archetype) seems to me to be open to grave objection.\n\n[99] If I have interpreted his meaning correctly. But I admit that I\nhave had great difficulty in understanding the argument in paragraph 5\nof p. 263 (especially the \"mit _-h-_\" of line 12).\n\n[100] Prof. Morsbach seems to regard Kentish as exceptional in its\ntreatment of intervocalic _h_, rather than in that of postconsonantal\n_h_. I am not quite clear as to his reason for this.\n\n[101] Cf. _Studies in Old English_, p. 240.\n\n[102] This text represents a more primitive type of glossary than the\nothers and, though it is not an ancestor of theirs, it has without\ndoubt used a considerable number of the same glosses (especially in\nSweet's \u00a7 XLV) which were incorporated in their archetype.\n\n[103] The form _scanomodu_ on the solidus need not be taken into\naccount. It is improbable that coins of this type were minted after the\nsixth century.\n\n[104] Prof. Morsbach further argues that even if my interpretation of\n_unneg_ was correct it would prove nothing, since _-u_ was probably\nlost after a long 'nebentonig' syllable earlier than after a long\n'haupttonig' syllable. But neither the _-gar_ of the Bewcastle\ninscription (cf. p. 70) nor the _felt_ of the East Saxon charter can be\nadmitted as evidence for this hypothesis.\n\n[105] In spite of what is said by Prof. Morsbach (p. 264 f.) these\nforms are scarcely intelligible unless _h_ was already lost.\n\n[106] E.g. perhaps _flod u(p)ahof_.\n\n[107] The place-name _Wihtgarabyrg_ in the Saxon Chronicle, ann. 530\n(B, C), 544 (A, B, C) is more probably to be regarded as a corruption\nof _Wihtwara-_ through the influence of the personal name _Wihtgar_.\n\n[108] Prof. Morsbach's explanation is that _felt_ here is a long\nnebentonig syllable. But we have no evidence that the influence of\n'sentence-accent' made itself felt in this way.\n\n[109] Prof. Morsbach would assign the monument to the time of Aldfrith,\nwho reigned 685-705 (not 725, a printer's error in Vietor's book).\n\n[110] In his own narrative of course he often uses forms which must\nhave been antiquated in his time (e.g. _Vurtigerno_, _Aeduini_,\n_Aeodbaldo_) and also foreign forms in the names of persons of\nContinental origin (e.g. _Agilberctus_). But it may safely be assumed\nthat all these cases are derived from earlier documents.\n\n[111] I.e. Oswiu (Oswald); cf. _Baduuini_, i.e. Baduwini. I have not\ntaken account of the possibility that _-uiu_ originally contained\nan _-h-_. If that could be proved the present discussion would be\npractically superfluous.\n\n[112] Cf. my Studies, p. 247. It will be seen that the number of cases\nin which M, B and C agree in _f_ (for _\u0180_) is very small.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE III. LITERARY INFLUENCE IN BEOWULF.\n\n\nI am not aware that any serious argument has been brought forward\nto show that Beowulf was a literary production. It is customary\nindeed, especially among English scholars, to use the word 'write'\nwith reference to its composition; but this is frequently due to\nmere carelessness. Nevertheless there is undoubtedly a widespread\nreluctance to admit that the poem came into existence without the\nuse of writing--partly on account of its length and partly because\nits technique is of rather an advanced order. The first of these\ndifficulties has now been definitely settled by the Servian poems, as\nwe shall see in the next Note. Here we need concern ourselves only with\nthe second.\n\nThe most definite pronouncement on this subject known to me is\ncontained in Prof. Ker's book, _The Dark Ages_, p. 250. \"_Beowulf_\nand _Waldere_,\" he says, \"are the work of educated men, and they were\nintended, no doubt, as books to read. They are not, like the _Elder\nEdda_, a collection of traditional oral poems.\" Here we have three\ndistinct statements. That Beowulf and Waldhere are not a collection of\npoems, like the Edda, is manifest. Whether they are traditional oral\npoems at all is a different question, the answer to which depends in\nthe first place on our attitude to Prof. Ker's second statement--that\nthey were intended as books to read. But this statement surely requires\nsome evidence. The only argument brought forward is that \"the _Beowulf_\nMS ... is intended as a book to be read, and is got up with some care.\nFrom the look of it, one places it naturally in the library of a great\nhouse or a monastic school; and the contents of it have the same sort\nof association; they do not belong to the unlearned in their present\nform.\" But, so far as the earlier part of this passage goes, the\nargument applies only to the tenth century. No one will deny that the\nearlier Anglo-Saxon poems were studied at that time; indeed they had\nprobably come to be regarded as, in a sense, classical. But have we\nany right to assume that scholars of the seventh or eighth centuries\nviewed these poems or their subjects in a similar light? If so how are\nwe to account for the total absence of references to such subjects in\nthe works of Bede? And what about Alcuin? _Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?_\nIs it likely that Alcuin would have regarded these _pagani et perditi\nreges_ as suitable subjects for the attention of scholars? The natural\npresumption from his language is that he knew of them not from literary\nworks, but only from street-minstrels whom he looked upon with disgust.\nYet Bede and Alcuin can hardly have been ignorant of any important\nliterary activity during their times, and it would be unfair to regard\nthem merely as religious bigots. In view of their silence it seems\nto me a precarious hypothesis even that the poems were committed to\nwriting much before the end of the eighth century.\n\nThere is no doubt of course that the writing of English was in common\nuse during the early part of the ninth century. But the paucity of\nearlier evidence renders it probable that this was a recent innovation;\nand the orthographical characteristics of eighth century documents\npoint to the same conclusion. Laws were written in English from the\nbeginning; but we may safely assume that this was done by professional\nscribes, in all probability ecclesiastics. Otherwise there is little\ndefinite evidence for the writing of the vernacular, except of course\nin glosses. The more learned clergy clearly preferred to use Latin;\nfor the less learned Bede states (_Ep. ad Ecgb._, cap. 5) that he had\nhimself had to make translations even of the Creed and the Lord's\nPrayer, for them to learn by heart. Where was a reading public to be\nlooked for in such a period[113]?\n\nBut we have yet to discuss the statement that \"_Beowulf_ and _Waldere_\nare the work of educated men.\" The question here is what is meant by\nthe word 'educated.' Nowadays the expression 'educated Chinese' is\nused in more than one sense. Sometimes it is applied to those who have\nreceived a good education according to the traditional standard of\nthat nation. Sometimes however, especially in newspaper language, it\nis used only of those Chinese who have received a Western education.\nWe need not doubt that the poets of Beowulf and Waldhere were among\nthe best educated men of their day according to the traditional native\nstandard. If they were court minstrels--a question we shall have to\ndiscuss in the next chapter--they could hardly be otherwise. But this\nis not what Prof. Ker means. The education which he has in view is of\nforeign (Roman) type, as may be seen by the latter part of the second\nof the quotations given above. Again (p. 252) he says: \"The English\nepic is possibly due to Virgil and Statius; possibly to Juvencus\nand other Christian poets, to the authors studied by Aldhelm and\nBede.\" If so[114], is it not remarkable that no obvious trace of such\ninfluence can be pointed out? It must not be assumed that the poets\nresponsible for the composition or preservation of Beowulf would have\nany inclination to disguise their knowledge of foreign poetry. The use\nwhich they have made of incidents derived from the Bible is decisive\nevidence to the contrary, although their knowledge of this subject\nseems to have been of a most elementary description. In Widsith we\nactually have at least one reference to a classical character (v. 15\nff.). But Beowulf is entirely free from anything of the kind.\n\nProf. Brandl[115] has likewise been attracted by the idea that the\ngrowth of Anglo-Saxon epic poetry may have been due to Latin models.\nAs a probable source of such influence he has fixed upon the Aeneid\nand even indicated a number of passages in this poem which may have\nsuggested certain scenes and incidents in Beowulf. Thus he notes that\nboth poems begin with the story of a wanderer (Scyld, Aeneas) who came\nover the sea (_feasceaft_, _primus et profugus_) and founded a great\ndynasty or empire. Then he suggests a connection between the song of\nHrothgar's minstrel on the Creation (Beow. 90 ff.) and a passage (Aen.\nI 742 ff.) which describes how Dido's minstrel Iopas sang of the origin\nof men and beasts, among other cosmological subjects. Further, he\ncompares the whole of the scene which contains the latter passage with\nthe account of Beowulf's reception at Heorot, noting the various stages\nin the arrival of the two heroes from their disembarkation to the feast\nwith which they are welcomed in the palaces. Incidentally, he remarks\nthat at the feast Wealhtheow hands the cup to Hrothgar and then to the\nvisitors (Beow. 615 ff.), while Dido pays the same honour to Bitias\n(Aen. I 738). Lastly, he compares the racing after Grendel's overthrow\n(Beow. 864 ff.) with the rowing contest in memory of Anchises (Aen. V\n104 ff.).\n\nI confess that, coming as they do towards the close of an admirable\ndiscussion of the subject, which no attentive student of Beowulf\ncan fail to appreciate, the comparisons suggested by Prof. Brandl\nstrike me as surprising beyond measure. The resemblances between the\nathletic contests, so far as they have any existence at all, are due to\npractices which are worldwide. Is there any reason for supposing that\nthe act of courtesy ascribed to Wealhtheow was not in full accordance\nwith early Teutonic custom? Parallels may be found, easily enough, in\nOld Norse literature. The arrival of the wanderer (Scyld, not Beowulf)\nhas nothing in common with that of Aeneas. The one is a baby and\nprobably alone; the other is the commander of a fleet. Then, as to\nthe resemblance between Beowulf's visit to Hrothgar and Aeneas' visit\nto Dido, I can only say that I fail to detect its existence. Prof.\nBrandl seems to lay most stress on this incident and points out certain\nparallelisms in the language: _corripuere uiam qua semita monstrat_\n(Aen. I 418) with _stig wisode gumum aetgaedere_ (Beow. 320 f.),\nand _coram quem quaeritis adsum Troius Aeneas_ (Aen. I 595 f.) with\n_Beowulf is min nama_ (Beow. 343). But are these not purely accidental\ncoincidences, such as one could find between almost any two narrative\npoems? When Prof. Brandl speaks of Aeneas' \"Verhandlung mit Dido zuerst\ndurch eine etikettegem\u00e4sse Mittelsperson\", I do not understand what is\nmeant. Certainly this description applies to the entry of Beowulf. But\nAeneas is present beforehand, shrouded in a cloud with which Venus has\ncovered him. In the midst of the scene the cloud is suddenly parted and\nAeneas disclosed to Dido's eyes. It seems to me that no meeting could\nwell be more different. There remains then only the fact that the two\nminstrels treat a somewhat similar theme (though in Beowulf this does\nnot take place on the occasion of the hero's arrival). It is no doubt a\ncurious coincidence; but the introduction of such a subject in Beowulf\nmay be accounted for quite satisfactorily without the hypothesis of any\nacquaintance with Virgil.\n\nI cannot quit this subject without remarking how much more plausible\na case could be made out for deriving Beowulf from the Homeric poems,\nespecially the Odyssey. Here there are striking parallels both in\ndiction and terminology, as we shall see in a later chapter. We may\nnote especially the epithets applied to princes and the formulae with\nwhich speeches are introduced. If we wish to find a real parallel to\nthe reception of Beowulf by Hrothgar, it is provided by the account of\nTelemachos' visit to Menelaos. Similar parallels are to be obtained\nfor the minstrel's lays and many other incidents. Are we then to\nsuppose that Beowulf is based upon the Odyssey? That is a hypothesis\nwhich I will gladly leave for others to work out. For my own part I\nprefer the explanation that similar poetry is the outcome, or rather\nthe expression, of similar social conditions. But in Beowulf and\nthe Homeric poems, as against the Aeneid, we have additional common\nelements in the fact that the interest is centred in the actual\ncharacters--not in the destiny of their descendants--and in the\nvividness and reality of the narratives, in spite of Grendel, Scylla\nand the rest. The latter of these two common features seems to me to\nindicate that both the Greek and English poets were depicting types\nof life with which they were themselves familiar, whereas no one will\ndispute that the Aeneid is a product of the library.\n\nHalf a century ago, when the study of Teutonic antiquity was still\nyoung, there was a general eagerness to refer every institution and\nbelief to a native origin. To-day we see the inevitable reaction--a\nhypercritical attitude towards every explanation of this character,\ncoupled with a readiness to accept theories of biblical or classical\ninfluence on the slightest possible evidence. It is this intellectual\natmosphere which, naturally enough, has given birth to the chimaera of\na literary Beowulf--a creature which, if I am not mistaken, belongs to\nthe same genus as certain well-known theories in Northern mythology.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[113] The case of King Aldfrith shows that educated laymen were not\nentirely unknown; but it is extremely unlikely that they were common.\nIn one charter (Birch, 99) Wihtred, king of Kent, is made to say:\n_signum sanctae crucis pro ignorantia litterarum expressi_. This\ndocument exists only in a late copy; but at all events it suggests that\nthe practice of making the cross, instead of signing, was due to a\nwidespread inability to write.\n\n[114] I confess that I am strongly inclined to suspect that anyone\nimbued with Latin learning would have lacked not only the inclination\nbut also the ability to compose such a poem as Beowulf. This however is\nan opinion which could only be substantiated by a wider knowledge of\nthe history of poetry in various parts of the world than I can make any\nclaim to possess.\n\n[115] _Grundriss d. germ. Philol._, II 1008.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE POETRY AND MINSTRELSY OF EARLY TIMES.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters we have seen that the persons and events\ncelebrated in the heroic poems apparently all belonged to the\nfourth, fifth or sixth centuries, and further that heroic poetry was\nflourishing among the Goths during the same period. For the existence\nof English, Scandinavian or German heroic poetry at this time we have\nno absolutely conclusive evidence. But the materials from which our\npoems are formed must largely be referred to the sixth century. This\nmay be seen most clearly in cases where the poems of two or more\nnations not merely treat an identical theme but also agree in the\nmotif or in comparatively small details, as in the stories of Ingeld,\nWaldhere and Svanhildr. A like age is probably to be attributed\nto resemblances in language, such as those shown by the hortatory\naddresses and the accounts of dragon-fights cited in the last chapter\n(p. 60 f.). The fact that these resemblances sometimes occur in stories\nrelating to entirely different characters need not prevent us from\nbelieving that they spring ultimately from a common origin.\n\nIt cannot of course be proved that the materials from which the heroic\npoems are derived were themselves always in poetic (metrical) form. In\nprinciple we must admit the possibility that they were transmitted from\none generation to another in a more or less stereotyped form of prose\nnarrative, such as we find later in the sagas of Iceland and Ireland.\nBut in point of fact we have no evidence whatever for the cultivation\nof such traditional prose narratives among any of the early Teutonic\npeoples, whereas there is good reason, as we shall see shortly, for\nbelieving that narrative poetry was both ancient and widely cultivated.\n\nIn the first place we may note that English and German poetry down\nto the ninth century shared a common system of metre and that the\nFornyr\u00f0islag, which is used in most of the Edda poems, differed but\nlittle from this type, except of course that it was always arranged in\nstrophes. The application of this common metre to narrative purposes\ncan scarcely be regarded as a recent innovation, for English and\nGerman poems frequently exhibit verses and half-verses of very similar\nconstruction. Thus in the Hildebrandslied speeches are generally\nintroduced with the formula: _Hadubrant gimahalta, Hiltibrantes sunu_,\nwhich is almost identical with a formula used in Beowulf: _Wiglaf\nma\u00f0elode, Weohstanes sunu_. In the same German poem (v. 42) we find the\nverse: _dat sagetun mi seolidante_ ('it has been told me by mariners'),\nwith which we may compare Beow. 377: _\u00feonne saegdon \u00feaet saeli\u00f0ende_.\nNote should also be taken of such phrases as (v. 55) _ibu dir din\nellen taoc_ ('if thy prowess is sufficient') and definitely poetical\nexpressions like (v. 43) _inan wic furnam_ ('war carried him off'),\nas compared with Beow. 572 _\u00f0onne his ellen deah_ and 1080 _wig ealle\nfornam Finnes \u00feegnas_. The number of such parallels might be greatly\nincreased if we were to take into account passages from religious\npoems, especially the Old Saxon Heliand.\n\nFor a very much earlier period direct evidence is furnished by the\nRoman historian Tacitus, who says (_Germ._ 2) that the Germani\npossessed ancient poems or songs (_carmina_) even in his time and adds\nexpressly that they had no other means of preserving a historical\nrecord[116]. That these poems were partly of what may be called a\n'heroic' character is clear from another passage (_Ann._ II 88),\nwhere it is stated that Arminius was still a subject of poetry among\nbarbarian nations (_canitur ... adhuc barbaras apud gentes_). In both\ncases the reference is in all probability to the peoples of western\nGermany rather than to the Goths.\n\nOn the whole then we need not doubt that the heroic poetry which we\nfind in England and Germany during the seventh and eighth centuries\nhad a long history behind it. Of course as to the form of the poetry\ncurrent in the first century we are entirely without information. Many\nscholars hold that it was exclusively choric, not only in Tacitus' time\nbut for four or five centuries later. This is one of the questions\nwhich we shall have to bear in mind in the course of our discussion.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe earliest historical reference to the cultivation of poetry, or\nrather perhaps minstrelsy, in England occurs in Bede's account of the\npoet Caedmon (_Hist. Eccl._ IV 24). In this story we are told that\nit was the custom that, when the villagers met together to drink and\namuse themselves, everyone should take his turn in singing to the harp.\nCaedmon, who had never been able to learn a song, used to leave the\nfestivities and make his way home as soon as he saw the harp coming\nin his direction[117]. No information is given as to the character of\nthese songs. Probably they would as a rule be quite short--perhaps not\nmuch longer than the hymn learned by Caedmon from the angel, which\ncontains only nine verses. It is not unlikely that they resembled\nsome of the metrical riddles more than any other form of Anglo-Saxon\npoetry which has come down to us. Longer songs, of a narrative type,\nmay of course have been known. But it is a question whether such songs\nwould deal with heroic themes or with folk-tales. We may think of the\nScandinavian story of Svipdagr and Mengl\u00f6\u00f0, which is preserved in a\nnumber of different versions, ranging in date probably from the tenth\ncentury to the seventeenth or later.\n\nBut we have already seen (p. 41 f.) that in the eighth century at\nleast the recitation of heroic poetry was by no means unknown. Indeed\nwe may infer from the language used by Alcuin (_ridentium turuam in\nplateis_) that it enjoyed a good deal of favour with the general\npublic. Another of his letters[118] speaks to much the same effect.\nWe may gather from the use of the word _citharista_ that these\nrecitations also were accompanied by the harp. But the language of the\nletters seems rather to suggest that the performers in such cases were\npersons who made minstrelsy more or less of a profession. A century\nearlier the existence of professional minstrels may be inferred from\nthe well-known story of Aldhelm[119]--that he used to take up his\nposition on a bridge, like a professional minstrel (_quasi artem\ncantitandi professum_), and sing to the people in order to call them\nback to church. We are not informed as to the character of the poems\nhe recited, but clearly they were of a type calculated to attract the\ncountry people.\n\nOn the Continent we find very similar evidence. A passage in the Annals\nof Quedlinburg, to which we have already alluded and which dates\nperhaps ultimately from the tenth century, states that the country\npeople used to sing of Dietrich von Bern[120]. From a much earlier\nperiod we have an interesting reference to a Frisian minstrel named\nBernlef, who became a disciple of St Liudger. He had been blind for\nthree years, when he was brought to the missionary, but \"he was greatly\nloved by his neighbours because of his geniality and his skill in\nreciting to the accompaniment of the harp stories of the deeds of the\nancients and the wars of kings[121].\" This incident appears to have\ntaken place before 785. That minstrelsy was definitely recognised as a\nprofession among the Frisians is shown by the last clause in the Lex\nFrisonum, which fixes a special compensation for injury to the hand of\na harpist[122].\n\nFrom all this we gather that in the eighth century there existed both\nin England and Germany a class of minstrels whose practice it was to\nplay the harp and recite heroic poetry in the village-streets or on\nbridges or wherever they could gather an audience. Now if we turn to\nthe poems themselves we find that they also contain references to\nprofessional minstrels; but these appear to have been quite a different\nclass of persons from those with whom we have been dealing.\n\nAt the close of his elegy (v. 35 ff.) Deor gives the following account\nof himself: \"With regard to myself I will say that formerly I was the\nbard (_scop_) of the Heodeningas and dear to my lord. My name is Deor.\nFor many years I have had a good office and a gracious master. But now\nHeorrenda, a skilful poet, has received the domain which the king had\nbefore given to me.\" There may be some difference of opinion as to the\nprecise meaning of the word _londryht_[123], but it is clear enough\nthat the poet had been a court-minstrel and that he had been supplanted\nin the king's favour by a rival. In Beowulf also we find mention of a\nperson who seems to hold a similar position. The word _scop_ occurs\nthree times in this poem (vv. 90, 496, 1066)--always perhaps with\nreference to the same man. In each case he is represented as singing or\nreciting, and twice mention is made of the harp. On the last occasion,\nwhen he recites the story of Finn and Hnaef at the banquet (cf. p. 2),\nhe is called _Hro\u00f0gares scop_, which seems to imply a sort of official\nposition.\n\nThe case of Widsith is somewhat different. The poet is a traveller\nwho prides himself on the large number of nations he has visited. He\nstates also that he served under various princes by whom he had been\nhandsomely rewarded. The poem ends with some reflections on the life\nof wandering minstrels; but these verses may be a later addition, like\nthe introduction. At all events in v. 94 the poet speaks of his return\nhome, when he presented to his lord, Eadgils prince of the Myrgingas,\na valuable 'ring' which had been given him by Eormenric. This present\nwas a reward to Eadgils for his kindness in granting the poet the\nland formerly held by his father. It would seem then that the poet is\nrepresented as a man of good position. Whether we describe him as a\nwandering minstrel or not, his occupation is clearly to be regarded as\ncourt-minstrelsy and different therefore from that of Bernlef and the\nharpists mentioned by Alcuin.\n\nApart from these personal notices there can be little doubt that\nthe heroic poems which have come down to us were of courtly and not\nof popular origin. In the first place we may note their strongly\naristocratic tone. This may be appreciated from the fact that all the\nwomen mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon poems are of royal birth, while the\nmen are either princes or persons, apparently of noble or knightly\nrank, attached to the retinues of princes. On the rare occasions when\npersons of humbler rank are referred to, their names are not mentioned.\nIn Beowulf no name is given even to the court-minstrel. Again the poems\nfrequently refer to details of court etiquette, with which they seem\nto be well acquainted. In the later German poems this feature must of\ncourse be attributed to the conditions of the twelfth and thirteenth\ncenturies, when the poems were composed. But it is quite as marked even\nin Beowulf. We may note especially the long and detailed account of\nBeowulf's arrival at the Danish king's hall and the conversation which\nthe chamberlain holds with the king on the one hand and the visitor on\nthe other, before the latter is invited to enter. The chamberlain's\nexact position is remarked, when he approaches the king and it is added\nthat \"he knew the custom of knighthood[124].\" Other members of the\ncourt also have their position or duties described (vv. 500 f., 1161\nf., 1165 f., 1794 ff.); but most of all the poet loves to picture the\nmovements of the king and queen (vv. 612 ff., 920 ff., 1162 f.).\n\nThen again it should be observed that persons of royal rank are very\nseldom spoken of with disrespect. The rare exceptions to this rule\nprobably all refer to persons of a remote past, Eormenric, Thrytho\nand Heremod, and in the last two cases the reprobation is qualified\nin a very marked way. Moreover the ground of censure is invariably\nviolence, cruelty or treachery. Of immoral or unseemly conduct we have\nno mention. Indeed, except in the story of Weland--which stands by\nitself in many ways, as we shall see later--such subjects seem to be\nstudiously avoided. More than this the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems are\nentirely free from coarseness of language, such as we frequently find\nin Saxo's history, and indeed from references of any kind which could\noffend even the most fastidious taste. In general the same remarks are\ntrue also of the German and Scandinavian heroic poems, though not in\nthe same degree. But the gnomic and theological poems of the Edda show\na wholly different tone, which at its worst (e.g. in Lokasenna) verges\non bestiality.\n\nLastly, we must not overlook the fact that in dignity and polish of\nstyle the heroic poems far surpass any narrative works which the\nEnglish language has to offer for many centuries later. It has been\nremarked that the composition of epic poetry requires a more or less\nprofessional training, and in the case of such poems as Beowulf this\nis doubtless true, not only on account of its length but also because\na very large vocabulary is needed for the constant interchange of\nepithets which is one of its chief characteristics, while the allusions\nwith which it abounds point to the possession of much historical or\ntraditional lore[125]. At the time when it was produced the knowledge\nand leisure necessary for such composition is scarcely likely to have\nbeen found outside the entourages of kings.\n\nOn the other hand we have seen that minstrelsy of some kind was\ncultivated even by peasants in Caedmon's time. We can hardly doubt\nthat such was the case to a higher degree in court circles. In Beow.\n867 ff. we find a 'king's thegn' composing an account of the hero's\nadventure immediately after its occurrence, and utilising apparently\nby way of illustration the story of Sigemund. This person may be the\ncourt minstrel; but the identity of the two is scarcely certain. In\na later passage (v. 2105 ff.), referring to the banquet after the\nfight with Grendel, we hear of the king himself taking his turn with\nthe harp: \"There we had poetry and music. The old Scylding (Hrothgar)\nrelated stories of old time out of his great store of information.\nNow the martial[126] hero would lay his hands on the joyous harp,\nthe instrument that makes good cheer; now he would recite a poem,\ntrue but sad; now a story of marvel would be related in due course by\nthe magnanimous king. Now again, bowed with age as he was, the old\nwarrior would begin to lament that he had lost the martial vigour of\nyouth. His heart surged within him as he called to mind the manifold\nexperiences of a long life.\" It is held that the reference here is\nto lyrical effusions rather than to anything in the nature of epic\nnarrative[127]; but I am inclined to doubt if we are justified in\ntotally excluding the latter. I would rather favour the view that the\ncultivation of minstrelsy, including narrative as well as lyric poetry,\nwas a general accomplishment in royal households, and that the office\nof court-minstrel was an honour given to that member of the court who\nhad attained the greatest proficiency in his art.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe statements of the poems as to the prevalence of court-minstrelsy\nduring the Heroic Age are fully confirmed by the testimony of\ncontemporary Roman writers. Perhaps the most important reference is\na passage in Priscus' account of his visit to Attila in the year\n448. After describing the banquet given by the king to his guests he\nproceeds as follows[128]: \"When evening came on torches were lighted\nand two barbarians stepped forth in front of Attila and recited poems\nwhich they had composed, recounting his victories and his valiant deeds\nin war. The banqueters fixed their eyes upon them, some being charmed\nwith the poems, while others were roused in spirit, as the recollection\nof their wars came back to them. Others again burst into tears, because\ntheir bodies were enfeebled by age and their martial ardour had\nperforce to remain unsatisfied.\"\n\nIt will be noticed that this account bears a curious resemblance to the\npassage from Beowulf which we have just quoted. Nothing is said as to\nthe language in which the poems were composed[129], but at all events\nwe need hardly doubt that in this as in other respects Attila was\nfollowing Gothic custom. For the duet we find an interesting parallel\nin a passage of Widsith (v. 103 ff.): \"Then Scilling and I began to\nsing with clear voices before our victorious lord; loudly rang out\nour music as we played the harp. Then it was openly confessed by many\nbrave-hearted and experienced men that they had never heard a better\nsong.\"\n\nEvidence for the cultivation of minstrelsy at Teutonic courts in Gaul\nis furnished by letters of Cassiodorus (_Variarum_ II, 40 f.) and\nSidonius Apollinaris (_Ep._ I, 2). The former document is an answer\nfrom the Ostrogothic king Theodric to a request from Clovis, king of\nthe Franks (d. 511), who had asked him to send him a skilled minstrel.\nSidonius' letter is a very full account of Theodric II, king of the\nVisigoths, who reigned from 453 to 466. He states that the king seldom\nadmitted jesters when he was dining, and that he took no pleasure in\nmusic except when it encouraged manliness of spirit as well as pleased\nthe ear. In neither of these cases however is it certain that the\nperformers were Goths.\n\nA clearer case of Teutonic minstrelsy, dating from the same period,\noccurs in one of Sidonius' poems (_Carm._ 12[130]), in which the\nauthor complains that he has to live among troops of longhaired and\ngreedy Burgundians, listening with polite attention, in spite of his\ndisgust, to their songs. More than a century later we hear of Frankish\ncourt-minstrelsy in a neighbouring district. In a poem addressed to\nLupus, duke of Aquitaine, about the year 580, Venantius Fortunatus\n(_Carm._ VII 8. 61) says: \"Let the Roman sound your praise with his\nlyre and the barbarian with his harp[131]\"; and again: \"Let us frame\nverses for you, while barbarian poets compose their lays; thus the hero\nwill be greeted with like honour, though in diverse strains[132].\"\nIn the introduction to his poems the same author complains of the\nconstant buzzing of the harp, as it resounds to the barbarian lays[133].\n\nA curious case of royal minstrelsy is recorded by Procopius (_Vand._\nII 6) in his account of the siege of Mount Pappua (A.D. 534). Gelimer,\nking of the Vandals, wrote a letter to Faras, the Herulian chief who\ncommanded the besieging army, begging him to send him a harp, a loaf\nand a sponge. The explanation given by the messenger was that the king\nhad composed a song upon his misfortunes and as he was a good minstrel\nhe was anxious to accompany it with a mournful tune on the harp as he\nbewailed his fate[134]. We are again reminded of Hrothgar, but perhaps\nstill more of Hrethel's dirge over his son (Beow. 2460 f.).\n\nThese examples are sufficient to show that minstrelsy was widely\ncultivated in the courts of the Teutonic princes who had established\nthemselves in Roman territory. Taken together with the references\nin Anglo-Saxon poetry, which deals of course with the more northern\npeoples, they leave no doubt that the prevalence of court-minstrelsy\nwas one of the characteristics of the Heroic Age. For the existence of\nprofessional minstrels the Roman evidence is not so clear, though we\nmay regard in this light the two 'barbarians' mentioned by Priscus (p.\n84). On the whole the impression which we gain from our authorities\nis that the cultivation of the art was more or less general as in the\nnorth.\n\nBut it must certainly not be assumed that the poems of the period were\nalways of an ephemeral character. Jordanes (cap. 5), in a passage to\nwhich we have already referred, says that the Goths \"used to sing\nto the strains of the harp ancient poetry dealing with the deeds of\ntheir ancestors, Eterparmara, Hanala, Fridigernus, Vidigoia and others\nwho are very famous in this nation[135].\" Again, when he mentions\nthe migration of the Goths to the Black Sea (cap. 4), he refers\nto \"their ancient poems,\" where this event is commonly related in\nalmost historical style[136]. From such expressions we must conclude\nthat Jordanes knew, directly or indirectly, of Gothic poems which he\nbelieved to have been in existence for a considerable time.\n\nJordanes' language may be compared with Einhard's reference to the\n'barbarous and very ancient poems' collected by Charlemagne (cf. p.\n62). But in reality there appears to be an essential difference between\nthe minstrelsy of the Heroic Age and that of Charlemagne's time. In the\nlatter period we hear only of 'very ancient poems' or of poems dealing\nwith 'the deeds of the ancients,' as in the story of Bernlef. The two\nexpressions may really be more or less equivalent, for there is nothing\nto show that Bernlef was an original composer. For the existence in\nhis time of court-minstrelsy, or indeed of any poetry dealing with\ncontemporary persons and events, we have no evidence which can be\ncalled satisfactory[137].\n\nIn the Heroic Age on the other hand we have references not only to\n'ancient poems' but also to original compositions, dealing with the\npraise or fortunes of living men. The exploits of Attila, one of the\nleading figures of that age, were sung in his own presence, as we know\nfrom an eye-witness. We need scarcely doubt therefore that Beowulf\ntruly reflects the spirit of the times when it makes one of the Danish\nking's thegns compose a poem on the hero's exploit immediately after\nthe event. It is to such compositions that heroic poetry--indeed in a\nsense we may say the Heroic Age itself--owes its origin.\n\nThe beginning of the process may be seen from a few passages in\nWidsith. At the end of the poem we are told that \"he who wins praise\n(_lof_) shall have his glory (_dom_) established on high beneath the\nsky.\" The meaning of the first expression is explained by another\npassage (v. 70 ff.): \"I have been in Italy with Alboin. No human being,\nas far as my knowledge goes, had a readier hand than had Audoin's\nson for the winning of praise, nor a heart more ungrudging in the\ndistribution of rings and shining bracelets.\" We may compare also what\nthe poet says of his patroness, the princess Ealhhild (v. 99 ff.):\n\"Her praise spread through many lands, when I set myself to declare\nin song where under heaven it was that I knew of a gold-adorned queen\nwho lavished presents in the noblest fashion.\" The chief object which\nthe characters of the Heroic Age set before themselves is to 'win\nglory'--to have their fame celebrated for all time. Thus in Beow. 1387\nff. the hero says: \"Let him, who can, win for himself glory before he\ndies; that is the best thing which can come to a knight in after times,\nwhen he is no more.\" Such glory may be won by brave deeds, as when\nBeowulf says to Hrothgar before his second adventure (_ib._ 1490 f.):\n\"I will win for myself glory with Hrunting (a sword), or death shall\ntake me,\" or again when the queen says to Beowulf (_ib._ 1221 ff.):\n\"Thou hast brought it about that men shall esteem thee far and near\nand for all eternity, wheresoever the sea encircleth its wind-swept\nbarriers.\" But the same object can be attained by generosity, which\nwill ensure one's praise being sounded from court to court.\n\nNow perhaps we are in a better position to understand why the Heroic\nAge ends when it does. The latest person mentioned in the heroic poems\nis Alboin who died about 572. The last Roman author who mentions\nTeutonic court-minstrelsy is Venantius Fortunatus, who wrote apparently\nabout ten years later. Is there a connection between these two facts?\nIt should be remembered that we have felt some hesitation in including\nAlboin among the characters of the Heroic Age, for though his praises\nwere sung among the Saxons and Bavarians, as well as in England, he\ndoes not figure in any widely known story. We may reasonably expect\nthat such stories would as a rule--not necessarily--require a certain\ntime in which to be elaborated. Is it possible that in Alboin's time\nthe conditions favourable to such elaboration were no longer in\nexistence--that court-minstrelsy was dying out or had lost its creative\npower?\n\nIt will perhaps be urged that the absence of reference to\ncourt-minstrelsy after Venantius' time may be due to mere accident.\nBut a short consideration of the political position will show that\nthere is good reason for thinking otherwise. During the period which\nhad elapsed since the time of Priscus and Sidonius--we may say roughly\nabout a century and a quarter--the Teutonic world had undergone great\nchanges. Many kingdoms had disappeared, among them those of the\nHuns, Rugii, Heruli, Alamanni, Thuringians, Burgundians, Vandals and\nOstrogoths, and probably also the Warni and Gepidae. Of the nations\nwhich survived the Visigoths and Langobardi, and to a large extent\nthe Franks also, were settled among alien peoples and thus exposed to\ndenationalising influences. This is partly true also of the Bavarians,\nand they moreover had become subject to the Franks before the middle\nof the sixth century. Probably the only other Teutonic kingdoms which\nremained on the Continent were those of the Frisians and the Danes, for\nthere is no evidence that the Old Saxons were under kingly government\nat this time[138]. Moreover the Danes were almost cut off from the\nwestern peoples by the irruption of the Slavs who now occupied the\ngreater part of ancient Germany. Hence we may conclude that even if\ncourt-minstrelsy survived in a few places the poems had now no longer\nany chance of obtaining a wide international circulation.\n\nThe change of faith is of course another consideration which must be\ntaken into account. One of its effects was to cut off the Christian\nkingdoms from those of the Frisians and Danes. Probably also it had an\nadverse influence on the cultivation of court-minstrelsy, for there can\nbe little doubt that this was originally permeated by heathen ideas.\nAt all events we find in later times surprisingly few traces of heroic\npoetry in the territories of the Franks, Visigoths and Langobardi.\n\nOf the purely Teutonic kingdoms, excluding Denmark, that of the\nFrisians was the last to retain both its independence and its religion.\nIt can hardly be due to accident therefore that some of the most\nimportant of the heroic poems, such as K\u00fbdr\u00fbn (cf. p. 34) and probably\nalso the Norse version of the story of Sigur\u00f0r (cf. p. 59), appear to\nbe derived from Frisian sources, though this region was not their\noriginal home. Further, we have noticed that in Frisian law a special\ncompensation was fixed for injury done to the hand of a harpist. Still\nmore significant is the fact that in the passage quoted above (p.\n80) from the Vita Liudgeri, describing Bernlef's skill in reciting\nheroic poetry, one text adds the words _more gentis suae_. It would\nseem then that minstrelsy of this type was regarded as a distinctive\ncharacteristic of the Frisians and that heroic poetry retained its hold\nupon them at a time when it was little known elsewhere.\n\nIn England the conditions appear to have been quite different from\nthose with which we have been dealing, for at the end of the sixth\ncentury this country probably contained more Teutonic kingdoms than\ndid the whole of western and central Europe. We have seen reason for\nbelieving that Beowulf was composed within about half a century of\nVenantius' time and that the other heroic poems may date from the same\nperiod. From the evidence which we have discussed above we should\nnaturally conclude that court-minstrelsy lasted somewhat longer in\nEngland than elsewhere, although it dealt entirely with stories derived\nfrom abroad. It is true that there is no external evidence for such\nminstrelsy; but that is fully explained by the fact that we have\npractically no literature of any kind before the last decades of the\nseventh century. Most probably its extinction was due to that wave of\nreligious fervour which was started by the Kentish king Erconberht\nand which in the course of the following half century seems to have\nsucceeded in enforcing conformity to the new faith throughout the whole\ncountry.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt will be convenient now to consider briefly the court-poetry of the\nViking Age. The history of heroic poetry in the North unfortunately\ncannot be traced in its entire course. We have seen that there is a\nlong gap, extending over some two centuries and a half, in Danish\ntradition, and also that the poems which have come down to us are\nprobably all of Norse (Norwegian-Icelandic) origin. Yet the social\nconditions of the Viking Age were very different from those which\nprevailed on the Continent during the same period and unquestionably\nnearer than the latter to those of the Heroic Age. It is not\nunreasonable therefore to expect that the court-poetry of the Viking\nAge may throw light on the earlier period.\n\nWe saw in an earlier chapter (p. 15 f.) that, apart from the Edda, Old\nNorse literature is rich in narrative poems of the ninth and tenth\ncenturies. These are usually the work of known authors and deal for the\nmost part with contemporary persons and events, though they contain\nfrequent references to characters of the Heroic Age, as well as to the\nancestors of reigning princes. Many of the authors, such as Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr\nof Hv\u00edn, Th\u00f3rbi\u00f6rn Hornklofi and Go\u00f0\u00f0ormr Sindri, were what we may\ncall court-minstrels--or rather court-poets, for the harp seems not\nto have been used by such persons, at least in the latter part of the\nViking Age. But they can scarcely be regarded as professionals in any\nstrict sense of the term. As a rule they appear to have been men of\ngood family. Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr was a familiar friend of Harold the Fair-haired,\nwho entrusted him with the education of one of his sons. Go\u00f0\u00f0ormr\nSindri, who composed poems for the same king, refused to receive any\nreward and had sufficient influence with Harold to insist on his being\nreconciled with his son Halfdan Svarti. Another poet of the same\nperiod, Einarr[139], commonly called Torf-Einarr, was earl of Orkney\nand practically an independent prince. Eyvindr Skaldaspillir, who was\nattached to the service of Haakon I and Haakon, earl of Lade, was\nhimself a descendant of Harold the Fair-haired.\n\nIt has been mentioned that from the middle of the tenth century onwards\nmost of the poems quoted in the sagas are of Icelandic authorship.\nA considerable number of them may be regarded as court-poems, since\nthey were composed in honour of princes whom the authors were visiting\nat the time. As an example we may take a verse quoted by Gunnlaugs\nSaga Ormstungu (cap. 7) from the poem composed by the hero, when he\nvisited London in 1001: \"The whole nation reveres England's generous\nruler as a god; all ranks, warrior prince and people alike, bow\ndown to Aethelred.\" Such poems were often handsomely rewarded.\nAethelred presented Gunnlaugr with a scarlet cloak, lined with fur and\nembroidered with lace, while Sigtryggr, king of Dublin, gave him a\nfur-lined cloak, a lace-embroidered tunic and a gold ring which weighed\na mark. It happened very frequently that men like Gunnlaugr would\nenter a king's retinue and remain with him for months and even years.\nBut they would seldom consent to recognise any lordship permanently,\nsince as a rule they had lands of their own in Iceland, to which they\neventually returned.\n\nIt is hardly probable that any class of persons exactly corresponding\nto this existed in the Heroic Age itself, for with the somewhat\ndoubtful exception of the Old Saxons we have no evidence for\nindependent commonwealths during that period. In Widsith, it is true,\nwe have the case of a minstrel who claims to have wandered far and\nwide and to have visited many princes by whom, like Gunnlaugr, he\nwas handsomely rewarded. But Widsith had a lord at home to whom he\nsubsequently returned. Indeed the introduction, if we may use it as an\nauthority, seems to make him set out at first on a definite commission\nfrom that prince. The permanent lordless state was probably altogether\nforeign to the conditions of the Heroic Age. The lordless man in the\npoems is either one who has lost his lord, as in the Wanderer, or one\nwho has been dismissed from his lord's service, like Deor. Until he\nfinds another lord he has neither home nor security, and his condition\nis pitiable in the extreme.\n\nBut it is by no means so clear how the court-minstrels of the Heroic\nAge differed from the Norwegian poets of the Viking Age. In K\u00fbdr\u00fbn the\nminstrel H\u00f4rant (Heorrenda) seems to hold a position quite comparable\nwith that of Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr or Go\u00f0\u00f0ormr Sindri; indeed he is even described\nas a relative (_m\u00e2c_) of the king[140]. Again, we may take the case of\nStarka\u00f0r. He is commonly regarded as the type of a roving poet-warrior\nof the Viking Age. But in reality he seems to belong to the Heroic Age;\nfor however late the poems attributed to him may be in their final\nform, they had their counterparts in England probably as early as the\nsixth century. There is no conclusive evidence for denying either that\nhe was the foster-father of Ingialdr (Ingeld) or that he entered the\nservice of a number of different kings.\n\nThe story of Starka\u00f0r is bound up with the history of heroic poetry in\nthe Viking Age--a difficult problem, to which we shall have to refer\nagain shortly. We may note here however that the poems of Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr\nand Hornklofi must have been preserved for some three centuries by\noral tradition before they were committed to writing. There seems to\nbe no reason therefore for denying in principle the possibility that\npoems may have survived even from the Heroic Age. It is to be observed\nthat court-poets were expected to be able to recite old poems, as well\nas works of their own composition. Thus on the morning of the battle\nof Stiklestad (A.D. 1030) St Olaf ordered the Icelander Th\u00f3rm\u00f3\u00f0r\nKolbr\u00fanarskald to recite the old Biarkam\u00e1l. This story is interesting\nas it shows that the love of the heroic poems was strong enough to\nassert itself in an hour of supreme danger and under a most religious\nking.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have seen that one of the\ncharacteristics of the Heroic Age was the prevalence of\ncourt-minstrelsy of a certain type, namely the recitation of metrical\nspeeches accompanied by the harp. The cultivation of such minstrelsy\nseems to have been more or less general, and it is certain that princes\nhad their praises and exploits celebrated in poems of this kind during\ntheir lifetime and even in their presence. But with the close of the\nHeroic Age the evidence for minstrelsy of this type apparently ceases\naltogether. In the eighth century we hear only of wandering minstrels\nwho are invited into houses or perform in the streets. The minstrelsy\nof this period seems not to have been creative. At all events it deals\nonly with characters belonging to former times, Ingeld or Alboin or\nancient kings in general. Between these two periods we have to set the\ncomposition of the English heroic poems and probably also those German\npoems which were regarded as ancient in Charlemagne's time. Lastly,\nwe find in Germany a series of poems dating from the twelfth and\nthirteenth centuries in which the old stories are treated again but in\na new form.\n\nIt appears then that the history of heroic poetry falls naturally\ninto four stages. To Stage I belong the court-poems of the Heroic Age\nitself; to Stage II the epic and narrative poems based on these; to\nStage III the popular poetry of the eighth and following centuries;\nto Stage IV the German poems of the twelfth and following centuries,\ncomposed at a time when heroic subjects had again come into favour with\nthe higher classes.\n\nTo Stage I we may assign not only laudatory poems dealing with the\nvictories and valour of living princes, but also such compositions\nas Gelimer's dirge and choric songs like the funeral chant over\nAttila[141]. From this stage probably nothing has come down to\nus--though it would be difficult to point out any essential difference\nbetween Gelimer's dirge and the Elegy of Deor. We can form an idea\nhowever of these earliest poems from the poetry of the Viking Age,\nwhich seems to have been composed under very similar conditions. As\ninstances we may cite Gunnlaugr's poem on Aethelred II (cf. p. 91 f.)\nand Eyvindr's poem on the death of Haakon I, which we shall have to\ndiscuss later.\n\nStage II is represented by the Anglo-Saxon poems, which are clearly\nproducts of court-life, as we have seen (p. 81 ff.). From its general\nresemblance to these it seems probable that the Hildebrandslied belongs\nto the same class. Some writers draw a distinction between Beowulf and\nWaldhere on the one hand and Finn and the Hildebrandslied on the other,\nclassifying the former as epics and the latter as lays (Lieder). It\nmay be granted that the style of the two latter poems appears to be\nmore rapid and less diffuse than that of the others. Still I should\nprefer to speak of short and long epics, or rather perhaps of short\nand long narrative poems. Very probably the earliest narrative poems\nwere comparatively short. It may be that poems on the scale of Beowulf\nwere first composed in England--though this can hardly be proved.\nBut the difference between the two classes seems to me to be one of\ndegree and not of kind. At all events no one will suggest that the\nHildebrandslied is even approximately contemporaneous with the events\nwhich it professes to describe. One would expect it to be at least as\nremote from them as is the case with Beowulf.\n\nStage III is directly represented only by certain ballads such as the\nSeyfridslied, which in their present form date from a time considerably\nlater than the poems belonging to Stage IV. Much indirect evidence\nhowever can be obtained from various sources of earlier date, e.g. from\nThi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern, which is largely based on the popular heroic\npoetry of northern Germany, and from parts of Saxo's History which seem\nto be derived from Danish ballads. So far as we can judge from our\nauthorities the popular poems seem to have differed in many ways from\nthose which we have been discussing. They tended to simplify complex\nstories by the loss of minor characters and to amalgamate stories\nwhich were originally quite unconnected. Again, they appear to have\nhad a preference for biographical sketches, whereas the court poems\nare usually occupied with accounts of adventures which lasted only a\nfew days. We may add also the absence of any detailed acquaintance\nwith court-life and a general approximation to the characteristics of\nfolk-tales, e.g. in the introduction of nameless characters and persons\nof humble station.\n\nIt must be remembered of course that our authorities knew the popular\npoems only as they existed in the twelfth century[142]. We cannot\nsay with any confidence that Bernlef's poems possessed the same\ncharacteristics. There is nothing to show that the Hildebrandslied was\nwritten down before his time, and it may be to persons of his type\nthat we owe its preservation. The Anglo-Saxon poems may not have been\ncommitted to writing till a still later period. All that we can say is\nthat they show no obvious signs of popular corruption and that their\ndiction is much more archaic than that of poems which were composed\nin the eighth century. We have seen that in Iceland poems of a rather\nelaborate type could be preserved by oral tradition for over three\ncenturies. This however was in a community which was largely given up\nto the cultivation of poetry. A knowledge of the old poems would be a\nnecessary part of the training of those who hoped to win rewards for\ntheir art in foreign courts. Such favourable conditions can hardly have\nexisted either in England or Germany. The process of disintegration\nwhich the poems underwent in the latter country points to their being\npreserved only by village minstrels, who as time went on became less\nand less expert in their profession.\n\nStage IV is represented by the Middle High German epic poems, which\nboth in form and spirit show all the characteristics of the age in\nwhich they were composed. In England this stage was never reached.\nThere may have been a revival of interest in heroic poetry during the\nninth and tenth centuries, but we have no evidence for the composition\nof new poems on these subjects.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the poems of Stage IV are derived from\nthose of Stage III. But the question may be raised whether the latter\nwere necessarily derived from poems of Stages I and II--whether some\nheroic poems may not have been entirely of popular origin. It may be\nfreely granted that the poetry of Stage II was constantly exposed to\npopular influence, especially in the form of folk-tales. Most scholars\nindeed hold that some of the best known heroic stories, such as those\nof Sigur\u00f0r-Siegfried and Weland, are derived from popular mythology.\nWith this problem we shall have to deal later. On the whole however I\nam inclined to doubt whether we possess a single heroic story which has\nnot been treated in court-poetry at an earlier stage in its career.\n\nAgain, the relationship between Stage I and Stage II is not so simple\nas the bare statement given above might seem to imply. In the first\nplace it is only as a class that poems of Stage I can be regarded as\nthe earlier. Individual poems may very well be later than others which\nbelong to Stage II. Thus it is extremely probable that Gothic princes\nwere listening to laudatory poems about themselves at a time when\nother Gothic poems, of a definitely narrative type, were coming to be\nregarded as ancient. Then again, poems of a more or less narrative type\nmay have been composed quite soon after the events which they treat.\nHornklofi's Hrafnsm\u00e1l and the poem on the battle of Brunanburh must\nbe regarded as analogous to poems of Stage I, but it is only a short\nstep from such works to purely narrative pieces. Indeed, in a sense,\nwe may almost class among narrative poems Eyvindr's H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l, which\ndescribes the fall of Haakon I at the battle of Fitje. Yet the author\nwas himself present at the battle. It is by no means clear then that\npoems belonging to Stage II necessarily presuppose the existence of\nearlier poems or indeed of materials of any kind beyond the author's\npersonal knowledge and imagination.\n\nBut, more than this, we are scarcely justified in denying the\npossibility that even epics may have been composed upon quite recent\nevents. Few will deny that the poem on the battle of Maldon has a good\nclaim to that title, whatever its original length may have been. The\nextant portion contains nine speeches, by seven different persons.\nTwenty-two warriors in the English army are mentioned by name, and in\nabout a dozen cases the names of their fathers or other relatives are\nalso given. The poem differs from the heroic type in the fact that it\ndoes not record the name of a single person among the enemy; but that\nneed not prevent us from regarding it as an epic. Yet there can be no\nreasonable doubt that it was composed within a few years, possibly even\nmonths, of the battle[143].\n\nIt is likely enough that the author of this poem was well acquainted\nwith heroic poetry and that his treatment of the subject was affected\nthereby. But is that any objection to supposing that poems of this type\nmay have been composed within the Heroic Age itself? We have no reason\nwhatever for denying that this age was capable of such compositions.\nIndeed there is one piece of evidence which points very much to the\ncontrary.\n\nThis is a passage which occurs in Procopius' History of the Gothic\nWar (IV 20). After describing the embassy sent to Justinian by the\nUtiguri in the year 551, the author goes on to state that 'about this\ntime' hostilities broke out between the nation of the Warni and the\nAngli (\u1f08\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9) who inhabit the island of Britain (\u0392\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03af\u03b1). Not long\nbefore the Warni had been ruled by a king named Hermegisklos who,\nbeing anxious to establish his throne on a secure foundation, sought\nand obtained in marriage a sister of Theodberht, king of the Franks.\nBy a previous wife he had an only son named Radiger, who at this time\nwas betrothed to a sister of the king of the Angli and had paid her a\nlarge sum of money in furtherance of his suit[144]. One day, when the\nking was riding in a certain place with the chief men of his nation, he\nsaw a bird sitting on a tree and croaking loudly. Now, whether it was\nthat he really understood what the bird said, or whether he had some\nother source of information but pretended that the bird was uttering a\nprophecy which he understood--at all events he declared on the spot to\nhis companions that he would die forty days later, for this had been\nclearly foretold to him by the bird[145]. Thereupon he gives advice\nas to what should be done after his death, namely that Radiger should\nmarry his widow, in accordance with national custom, and dissolve\nhis engagement with the English princess. On the fortieth day the\nking died, and Radiger proceeds to carry out his injunctions. But the\nprincess, infuriated at his conduct, gathers together a fleet of four\nhundred vessels and invades the land of the Warni with 100,000 men.\nRadiger's army is completely defeated, and he takes refuge in a dense\nforest. The princess insists on his being taken alive at all costs, and\neventually he is captured and brought before her. He expects to be put\nto death, but after explaining the cause of his action, he is pardoned\non condition that he returns to his former engagement.\n\nThis story contains a number of features, such as the prophecy of the\nbird, the payment of the 'bride-fee' and Radiger's marriage with his\nstepmother, which show clearly that it was derived from someone who\nwas well acquainted with the peoples of northern Europe. There is no\nground for disputing that it has a historical basis; but at the same\ntime it is obviously much more than a mere record of facts. Apart from\nthe incident of the bird and the gross exaggeration apparent in certain\ndetails[146], the pictorial character of the narrative, especially\nin its earlier part, indicates a close affinity with heroic poetry.\nUn-heroic features are not wanting--the introduction of nameless\npersons and the political reflections of Irmingisl--but they may with\nprobability be attributed to Procopius himself. I do not mean to\nsuggest that his source of information was an epic poem, but I do think\nthat the intellectual atmosphere which could produce such a story must\nhave been exactly of the kind most favourable to the growth of such\ncompositions.\n\nProcopius, as we have seen, places this war in or about the year 551,\nand we can certainly understand the course of events more easily if\nit took place after Theodberht's death (A.D. 548). Therefore, since\nProcopius' work appears to have been written within the next seven or\neight years, the story had had little time to develop before it came\nto his ears. On the other hand we must remember that it refers to a\ndistant region--a fact I think not without significance for the history\nof contemporary narrative poetry. To persons who had themselves taken\npart in the events poems like that on the battle of Brunanburh would\nappeal much more strongly than purely narrative pieces. It is for\npersons who were either ignorant of the events or knew them only by\nhearsay that the latter would seem to be primarily intended.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn this discussion we have taken no account of the heroic poems of the\nEdda. There can be little doubt that these poems must be assigned to\nStage IV of our scheme; for though some of them are probably three or\nfour centuries older than the German poems of this class, they bear\nfairly obvious marks of the disintegrating process which seems to\ncharacterise popular poetry[147]. It may be asked how such an opinion\nis compatible with the view that the story of Sigur\u00f0r was derived\nfrom the Continent during the seventh century (cf. p. 59). The true\nexplanation is, I believe, that heroic poetry passed through Stage III\nafter it became known in Norway.\n\nWe noted in an earlier chapter (pp. 30, 33) that Norway plays no part\nin stories of the Heroic Age. On the other hand it has what we may call\na Heroic Age of its own--namely the Viking Age. We have no poems--and\nfew stories of any kind--dealing with persons of Norwegian nationality\nwho lived before that period. The remoteness, poverty and mountainous\nnature of the country doubtless retarded its development, not only\npolitically but also in the cultivation of poetry. The strophic\ncharacter of all Norse poetry is generally held to point to a choric\norigin, and it may very well be that this primitive type of poetry\nwas the only one used in Norway when the heroic stories first became\nknown there. Possibly it was to Frisian and Danish minstrels that the\nchange was due[148]. But the conditions suitable for a flourishing\ncourt-poetry, like that of the Heroic Age, scarcely existed before the\nlast years of the eighth century, when Norwegian princes had begun to\nenrich themselves with maritime enterprises.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[116] _celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud illos memoriae et\nannalium genus est, etc._\n\n[117] _nil carminum aliquando didicerat. unde nonnunquam in conuiuio\ncum esset laetitiae causa decretum ut omnes per ordinem cantare\ndeberent, ille ubi adpropinquare sibi citharam cernebat surgebat a\nmedia caena et egressus ad suam domum repedebat._\n\n[118] Mon. Germ., Epist. Carol. Aeui, II 21 (ad Hygbaldum episc.\nLindisfarnensem): _lectionis studium exercete. audiantur in domibus\nuestris legentes, non ludentes in platea_.\n\n[119] William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Pontif._, V \u00a7 190 (from King\nAlfred's _Handboc_).\n\n[120] _Amulung Theoderic dicitur ... et iste fuit Thideric de Berne di\nquo cantabant rustici olim_ (Mon. Germ., Scr. III p. 31).\n\n[121] _Et ecce illo discumbente cum discipulis suis oblatus est cecus\nuocabulo Bernlef qui a uicinis suis ualde diligebatur eo quod esset\naffabilis et antiquorum actus regumque certamina bene nouerat psallendo\npromere, etc._ Vita S. Liudgeri, II 1 (Mon. Germ., Scr. II p. 412).\n\n[122] _Qui harpatorem qui cum circulo harpare potest in manum\npercusserit componat illud quarta parte maiore compositione quam alteri\neiusdem conditionis homini, etc._ (Mon. Germ., Leg. III 699 f.).\n\n[123] Cf. my _Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions_, p. 369.\n\n[124] _Cu\u00f0e he dugu\u00f0e \u00feeaw_ (v. 359).\n\n[125] Cf. Brandl, _op. cit._, p. 981 f.\n\n[126] It is generally thought that all these sentences refer to the\nking.\n\n[127] Cf. Brandl, _loc. cit._\n\n[128] K. M\u00fcller, _Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, IV p. 92.\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1fb7\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f7a \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f84\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f84\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c9\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u1f25\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1, \u1f67\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f20\u03c3\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f41 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[129] The performers who followed are said to have used Gothic, Hunnish\nand Latin.\n\n[130] Freely translated by Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, Vol. II,\np. 363. That the songs were in the national language appears from the\nphrases _Germanica uerba_ (v. 4), _barbaricis abacta plectris ... Thalia_\n(v. 9 f.).\n\n[131] _Romanusque lyra plaudat tibi barbarus harpa._\n\n[132] v. 67 f.\n\n _nos tibi uersiculos, dent barbara carmina leudos:\n sic uariante tropo laus sonet una uiro._\n\nThe word _leudos_ is generally interpreted as in the next passage\n(Ang.-Sax. _leo\u00f0_); but is it not possible that here it is an error for\n_leudes_ (N. pl.)?\n\n[133] _sola saepe bombicans barbaros leudos arpa relidens_ (Mon. Germ.,\nAuct. Antiquiss. Tom. IV i p. 2).\n\n[134] \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1fa0\u03b4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f23\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[135] _antiquo etiam cantu maiorum facta modulationibus citharisque\ncanebant, Respamarae, Hanalae, Fridigerni, Vidigoiae et aliorum quorum\nin hac gente magna opinio est, quales uix heroas fuisse miranda iactat\nantiquitas._\n\n[136] _quemadmodum et in priscis eorum carminibus pene historico ritu\nin commune recolitur._\n\n[137] For a passage in Saxo Poeta which seems to indicate the existence\nof such poems cf. p. 6, note.\n\n[138] At all events they had no kings when we first obtain definite\ninformation about them, towards the close of the following century.\n\n[139] Son of R\u00f6gnvaldr, earl of M\u00f6re, and half-brother of G\u00f6nguhr\u00f3lfr\n(Rollo), first earl of Normandy.\n\n[140] In the Norse form of the story Hiarrandi is the name of He\u00f0inn's\nfather.\n\n[141] Jordanes, cap. 49; cf. Beow. 3170 ff.\n\n[142] Ekkehard's Waltharius of course belongs to a much earlier period,\nbut it is not always clear what has been added by Ekkehard himself.\n\n[143] Cf. Liebermann, _Arch._ CI, p. 15 ff.; Brandl, _Grundriss_, II p.\n106.\n\n[144] \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc7 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u1f7c\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3.\n\n[145] \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03be\u1f7a\u03bd \u039f\u1f50\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff3 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd. \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f55\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u1f44\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n[146] It is not clear whether the marvellous account of Britain which\nfollows this story comes from the same source or not.\n\n[147] They certainly resemble poems of Stage II both in form and spirit\nmuch more closely than their German counterparts do. But this may be\ndue partly to the fact that Stage III was of much shorter duration in\ntheir case.\n\n[148] A reminiscence of such minstrels may perhaps be preserved in the\nstory of the unfortunate Heimir, who fled to Norway with the child\n\u00c1slaug concealed in a harp and was murdered there by a peasant from\nwhom he had sought hospitality (_V\u00f6ls. Saga_, cap. 43).\n\n\n\n\nNOTE IV. ON THE HEROIC POETRY OF THE SLAVONIC PEOPLES.\n\n\nThe nearest modern analogy, at least in Europe, to the types of poetry\nwhich we have been discussing is probably to be found among the various\npeoples of Serbo-Croatian nationality. As an example we may take the\npoetry current among the Mohammedan population of Bosnia[149]. Since\nthe occupation of that province a large number of narrative poems have\nbeen collected and published, though only a few are as yet accessible\nin translations. These poems afford an interesting illustration of our\nsubject, not only because they deal with similar themes--heroism in\nbattle, single combats, love and revenge--and often in quite as full\ndetail, but also since the events with which they are concerned and\nthe conditions they reflect belong to a well-marked historical period,\nwhich we may regard as a kind of Heroic Age. The period in question\nembraces the greater part of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,\nmore especially the latter, a time when the Turkish Empire was at the\nheight of its power, and when its armies were frequently engaged in\nhostilities with the Austrians in Hungary and Croatia. Many of the\ncharacters mentioned in the poems are well known historical persons.\n\nBut beyond all this the value of the illustration lies largely in the\nfact that we have here what may be called a living heroic poetry,\nsuch as we hear of among the Teutonic peoples only through occasional\nnotices in ancient records. As among the latter it is customary for the\nminstrel (_piva\u010d_, dial. for _pjeva\u010d_) to accompany his recitation on a\nmusical instrument, the _tambura_, a kind of guitar with only two metal\nstrings. Among the Christian population the _gusle_, a primitive type\nof fiddle, is in use.\n\nThe poems vary greatly in length. Out of 320 pieces collected by\nDr Marjanovi\u0107 thirty contained less than 100 verses, while fifteen\nexceeded 2000, the longest of all amounting to over 4000. The average\nlength of the pieces described as epic is given at 873 verses; a\nhundred and three vary from 600 to 1000, and sixty-two from 1000 to\n1500. These figures are especially important in view of their bearing\non certain prevalent ideas as to the limits of oral poetry. It is to be\nobserved that the ordinary Servian metre is decasyllabic, the verse not\nbeing appreciably shorter than the average Teutonic alliterative verse.\nThe minstrel begins his recitation quite slowly, but after about a\nhundred verses he attains such a speed that not even a shorthand writer\ncan keep pace with him. Such recitations are extremely fatiguing, and\nin the longer poems it is customary to allow intervals of rest for\nrefreshments, questions and criticism. It will be seen that if carried\nout on these principles the recitation of a Teutonic poem of 2000, or\neven 3000, verses would be nothing impossible in the course of a long\nevening's entertainment.\n\nIn the 'recitation' great freedom is allowed. A minstrel need only hear\na poem two or three times (once, if it is sung) in order to reproduce\nit; but the reproduction is by no means given in the same words. To\na certain degree, says Prof. Murko, every minstrel is a more or less\ncreative poet ('Nachdichter'). But even by the same man a poem is never\nrepeated in exactly the same words. In the course of years changes may\nbe introduced which apparently render it almost unrecognisable. Some\nminstrels are experts in particular lines, special popularity being\nenjoyed by those who know best how to describe a girl's dress or the\ntrappings of a horse. The faculty for expansion and compression is\nalso very marked. Cases are known of minstrels who have doubled and\neven trebled the length of poems which they had heard. In one instance\ntwo variants of a poem are known, of which one contains 1284 verses,\nthe other barely 300. Such cases, as Prof. Murko remarks, supply\ninteresting evidence for the origin of different recensions of epic\npoems--particularly, we may add, for the relationship of lays and epics.\n\nFrom what has been said it will be clear enough that the poems are\npreserved by oral tradition. Vague rumours of written texts are heard\nof from time to time and, though none have yet been discovered, it\nseems probable that some poems have been committed to writing in the\npast. But the minstrels of the present day are invariably unable to\nread or write. As to the age and origin of the poems nothing is known\nfor certain, though most of them are believed to be about two centuries\nold. Four minstrels knew of an authoress--a certain 'pale-cheeked Ajka'\nfrom the Lika (in Croatia); but regarding her little or no information\nseems to have been obtained. The other minstrels could only give the\nnames of those from whom they had themselves heard the poems.\n\nThe minstrels belong to various stations of life. Some are men of good\nfamily, but the majority are peasant proprietors or workmen. Not many\ncarry on minstrelsy as a regular profession, except when they have\nfallen on bad times. The recitations are given in coffee-houses or at\nany holiday gathering. Very often too the minstrels are invited to the\nresidences of the Begs[150]. The case is recorded of one minstrel who\nrecited over a hundred poems for a certain Beg within six weeks. The\nMohammedan ladies are especially fond of such recitations. For his\nservices the minstrel receives payment, sometimes in money, sometimes\nin corn or livestock, sometimes only in coffee and cigarettes.\n\nIt will not escape notice that a good deal of what is said here\nmight be applied with considerable probability to the Frisian\nminstrel Bernlef or the English minstrels mentioned by Alcuin.\nIndeed, apart from the coffee and cigarettes, there is scarcely a\nsingle feature in the description given above for which we should\nnot expect to find parallels in Teutonic minstrelsy towards the\nclose of the eighth century. We may therefore reasonably look for\ntraces of those characteristics which distinguish Stage III in\nthe history of Teutonic heroic poetry, and in point of fact there\nseems to be abundant evidence in this direction[151]. The action is\nusually spread over a considerable time. The characters mentioned\nby name are few in number and recur again and again in different\nstories, each district apparently having a favourite hero who is\nintroduced as its representative on many different occasions[152].\nGeographical indications are very frequently erroneous, while\nhistorical persons figure in quite unhistorical relationships. The\nunsympathetic characters are often guilty of atrocious brutality.\nMoreover, we constantly find repetitions of the same words or formulae\nin consecutive verses after the manner of ballads. Indeed the\ncharacteristics of the poems generally--their merits as well as their\nfaults--are to a large extent those of popular rather than court poetry.\n\nBut, though the poems show the characteristics which we associate with\nStage III, it is questionable whether we are justified in including\nthem in this category; for there is no evidence that they have passed\nthrough anything corresponding to Stages I and II. Practically the\nonly court which they know at all is that of Stamboul, and of this\ntheir knowledge is naturally slight and remote. The highest personages\nwith whom they are really acquainted are the Begs. It is not unlikely\nthat in the days of Turkish supremacy--the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies--the provincial nobility were much more wealthy and\ninfluential than they now are; and it may be that some Begs then had\nminstrels attached to their own personal following. But their position\ncan never have been comparable with that of even petty Teutonic\nprinces. Hence, if we are entitled to suggest the previous existence of\ncourt-poetry at all, it can only be in a very restricted sense--so far\nat least as the extant poems are concerned.\n\nOn the other hand Servian poetry has without doubt had a long history,\nand even heroic poems are by no means the exclusive property of the\nMohammedan population. Indeed some of the Christian poems[153] seem to\nexhibit the characteristics of Stage III to a far less degree than the\nMohammedan ones; and they frequently deal with much earlier events.\nIt is likely enough that the beginnings of heroic poetry go back to\nthe fourteenth or fifteenth centuries[154], at which time its growth\nmay have been fostered by conditions much more similar to those of the\nTeutonic Heroic Age. To this question we shall have to refer again.\nThe subject as a whole however is one which must be left to experts.\nIn order to form a sound opinion one would have to take account of\nthe history of narrative poetry among the neighbouring peoples, more\nespecially the Bulgarians and Slovenians[155]. The total change of\nsubjects in the Mohammedan poems would be a necessary consequence of\nthe change of faith; that heroic poetry survived such a change at all\nis probably to be attributed to the fact that a large proportion of the\nnobility in Bosnia embraced Islam.\n\nBefore we leave the subject however note must be taken of one more\nimportant feature in the poems. The Mohammedan Bosnians were religious\nfanatics, and the spirit of religious war is generally present. It\nis not absolutely universal; some poems even represent Moslems and\nChristians in sworn brotherhood. As a rule however the world is\nregarded as divided into two hostile camps, one under the Sultan\n(Car), the other under the Emperor (\u0106esar). In this respect, as in\nseveral others, Bosnian poetry shows affinity with the Old French\nepics, whereas in early Teutonic poetry differences of creed, and even\nnationality, are scarcely recognised.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the north of Russia numerous ballads are still current which seem to\nbe based on events much more remote than anything treated in Servian\npoetry. Many of them deal with stories relating to the time of Vladimir\nI, who ruled over Kiev about 980-1015, and their antiquity is rendered\nhighly probable by the fact that the same king, together with his chief\nhero, Ilja of Murom, figures in Thi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern. In their present\nform these ballads show the characteristics of popular poetry to such\nan extent that they are scarcely distinguishable from folk-tales. Yet\nit is possible that they are in part descended from poems which might\nfairly be brought under Stages I and II of our scheme.\n\nAt all events there is some reason for suspecting that in early times\ncourt-poetry was not unknown in Russia. Evidence to this effect is\nsupplied by the Slovo o polku Igorev\u011b ('Story of Igor's expedition'),\nwhich may be described as an epic, though it has no fixed metrical\nform. The subject is a disastrous expedition undertaken by Igor, the\nson of Svjatoslav, against the Polovtses on the Don in the year 1185.\nIt is believed to be an absolutely contemporary work, composed within\ntwo years of the event. Both in language and spirit it shows rather\na striking resemblance to Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry. \"Igor leads his\nsoldiers to the Don: the birds in the thicket forebode his misfortune;\nthe wolves bristle up and howl a storm in the mountain clefts; the\neagles screech and call the beasts to a feast of bones; the foxes bark\nfor the crimson shields.... The Russians bar the long fields with\ntheir crimson shields, seeking honour for themselves and glory for the\nPrince[156].\" There are frequent references also to mythical beings.\nIt is held by many that this work was composed by a bard who belonged\nto the dru\u017eina or military following of the prince and that it is the\nlast relic of what may once have been a considerable body of poetry.\nCertainly we may note that the author repeatedly refers to a certain\n'Bojan the Wise, nightingale of ancient time,' a poet who is unknown\nfrom other sources, but who apparently lived nearly a century before\nthe composition of the Slovo. This carries us back practically to what\nwe may call the Russian Heroic Age, for Bojan is represented as singing\nthe praises of the sons of Vladimir I. In their time the Russian courts\nstill maintained intimate relations with the Scandinavian kingdoms.\nVladimir indeed appears to have had Norwegians in his service, and\nOlafr Tryggvason is said to have been brought up at his court. It is\nscarcely impossible therefore that this early poetry may have been due,\nin part at least, to Scandinavian influence.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[149] The first part of this note is mainly derived from an interesting\npaper by Prof. M. Murko in the _Zeitschrift des Vereins f\u00fcr Volkskunde_\n(Berlin), 1909, p. 13 ff., to which the reader is referred for further\ninformation and authorities. The collections of poems published by\nMarjanovi\u0107 and H\u00f6rmann have not been accessible to me.\n\n[150] Some interesting remarks relating to the prevalence of\nminstrelsy--apparently among the Christian population--during the\neighteenth century are to be found in Fortis' _Travels into Dalmatia_\n(London, 1778). \"A Morlacco travels along the desert mountains singing,\nespecially in the night time, the actions of ancient _Slavi_ kings and\nbarons or some tragic event.... Although the Morlacchi usually sing\ntheir ancient songs, yet other poetry is not altogether extinguished\namong them; and their musicians, after singing an ancient piece,\naccompanied with the _guzla_, sometimes finish it with some extempore\nverses, in praise of the personage by whom they are employed\" (_ib._,\np. 85).\n\n[151] The following observations are based on the poems published in\nKrauss' _Slavische Volkforschungen_.\n\n[152] Thus in a number of poems the Beg Ljubovi\u0107 appears as the\nrepresentative of Hercegovina.\n\n[153] Especially several of those dealing with the battle of Kossovo\n(1389), to which we shall have to refer in a later note.\n\n[154] There are references to the existence of heroic poetry in the\nneighbourhood of Spalato and Sebenico as far back as the sixteenth\ncentury; cf. Murko, _Arch. f. slav. Philol._, XXVIII 378. A much\nearlier reference has been traced in Nicephorus Gregoras' account\n(_Hist. Byz._, VIII 14) of his mission to the court of Stephan Uro\u0161\nin the year 1326, where it is stated of his followers: \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f96\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4' \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f34\u03b4\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd. But it is extremely doubtful whether these persons were\nServians.\n\n[155] In the middle of the sixteenth century the Slovenians of Tolmino\nused to sing \"di Mattia re d' Ungheria e di altri celebri personaggi di\nquella nazione\" (Murko, _Zeitschr. d. Vereins f. Volksk._, 1909, p. 14,\nnote). Matthias Hunyadi died in 1490.\n\n[156] Wiener, _Anthology of Russian Literature_, I p. 84.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE V. THE HEROIC POETRY OF THE CELTIC PEOPLES.\n\n\nIn the history of the various Celtic peoples there is evidence for\nthe existence of more than one Heroic Age. In the first place we\nhave some traces of heroic poetry among the ancient Gauls, though\nunfortunately it has entirely perished, together with all their\nvernacular records. Then again Ireland has preserved a great body of\nheroic literature, referring to a remote period. But, whatever may\nhave been their original form, these stories have come down to us for\nthe most part only in prose. Moreover, the subject is beset with so\nmany difficulties, both historical and linguistic, that it cannot be\napproached with safety except by an expert. We shall have to confine\nour attention therefore to the heroic poetry of the Cymry.\n\nEven here the difficulties to be encountered are sufficiently serious.\nYet it is fairly clear that many of these poems deal with events which\nare referred by the chronicles to the sixth century and the first half\nof the seventh. We may note especially four groups of poems: (1) a few\nconcerned with the exploits of Arthur and his heroes; (2) a somewhat\nlarger number referring to princes named Gwallawg, Urien and Rhydderch;\n(3) certain poems dealing with _Gododin_ and _Catraeth_; (4) a few\nrelating to Cadwallon. There are also two or three others, such as the\nelegy over Cynddylan, which seem to refer to the same period, though\nthey cannot be classed under any of these headings. A number of the\nabove poems, especially those included in the second and third groups,\nare attributed to two poets named Taliessin and Aneirin.\n\nThere is no doubt that Cadwallon is the well known Welsh king who\noverthrew the Northumbrian king Edwin in 633 and was himself destroyed\nby Oswald in the following year. But the poems of the second group seem\nalso to have a historical basis. In the Historia Brittonum (Harleian\ntext), \u00a7 63, we hear of four kings, _Urbgen et Riderch Hen et Guallanc\net Morcant_, who fought against the Northumbrian king Theodric and\nhis successors, Frithuwald and Hussa. Urbgen is said to have besieged\nhis opponents for three days in Lindisfarne (_Metcaud_), and to have\nperished eventually through the jealousy of Morcant. In another passage\n(\u00a7 62) we hear of _Neirin et Taliessin_ among other poets who composed\nBritish poetry in the time of a king named Dutigirn[157], who is made\ncontemporary with Ida, the father of Theodric. The origin of these\nentries is unfortunately obscure. They are incorporated with an English\ngenealogical document, dating apparently from the end of the eighth\ncentury; but they may quite possibly be derived from earlier sources.\nIn any case they cannot well be later than the first quarter of the\nninth century.\n\nAll the four kings mentioned in \u00a7 63 are known to us also from\ngenealogies of the tenth century. But one of them, Riderch Hen, is\nnamed in Adamnan's Life of St Columba, which is of course altogether\nindependent of Welsh tradition. It is there stated (I 15[158]) that\nRodercus, king of Dumbarton, consulted St Columba as to his fate and\nreceived the answer that he would die a peaceful death in his house--a\nprophecy which was subsequently fulfilled. As St Columba died probably\nin 597, the date given for Riderch Hen agrees well enough with what is\nstated in the Historia Brittonum; for according to the most trustworthy\nrecords Theodric and his two immediate successors reigned from about\n572 to 592 or 593. We have no ground for doubting that the references\nto Urbgen and the rest are based on equally good tradition.\n\nFor the characters mentioned in the Gododin poems no such evidence is\navailable. The poems themselves however contain references to the death\nof _Dyvynwal Vrych_--doubtless the Dalriadic king Domnall Brecc, who\naccording to the Irish annals was killed by the Britons three years\nafter the fall of Oswald, i.e. about the year 645. Unfortunately it\nis not made clear in what relationship this event stands to the main\naction of the poems[159]. The few identifications which can be made\nfrom the genealogies seem to be compatible with a date somewhere about\nthis time.\n\nThere can scarcely be any doubt that we are justified in regarding\nthe period covered by the poems as a kind of Heroic Age. The story of\nArthur was the one most elaborated in later times--a process which\nmust have begun before the ninth century, when it was incorporated in\nthe Historia Brittonum (\u00a7 56). How much historical truth this story\ncontains we do not know, though the chronicles refer Arthur to the\nearly part of the sixth century, i.e. the beginning of our period. To\na certain extent however the other stories have experienced the same\nprocess; for, apart from the question when the poems under discussion\nwere composed, there are others of undoubtedly later date, such as the\nEnglynion y Beddau, in which the same heroes are mentioned. Moreover it\nmust not be assumed that these were the only persons of the same period\nwhose praises were celebrated in poetry. Maelgwn, king of Gwynedd, who\ndied about 548, figures prominently in traditions of later times, and\nit is likely enough that the beginnings of these stories were due to a\nsimilar cause. On the other hand there is apparently no evidence for\nthe composition of poems dealing with the exploits of princes who lived\nin the latter part of the seventh century or for several centuries\nlater.\n\nAs to the origin of the poems discussed above we have no evidence which\ncan be called conclusive. Some of the poems themselves claim to be the\nwork of the poets Aneirin and Taliessin. At the present time however\nit seems to be generally held[160] that they are scholastic products\nof a later age, based upon chronicles and composed with the intention\nof glorifying the ancestry of some distinguished Welsh families. In\nsupport of this view it is contended that the language of the poems\ncannot possibly represent the form of Welsh spoken in the sixth or\nseventh centuries. But this argument is scarcely decisive; for it\nis clear that parts of the poems have undergone a certain amount of\nmodernisation, and it is by no means incredible that the same process\nmay have been in operation for centuries. I find it difficult to\nbelieve that in order to celebrate the ancestry of certain families\npoems would be composed recording an action which is represented as an\noverwhelming disaster for the British forces, such as that described in\nthe Gododin poems. And can it really be proved that many of the heroes\ncelebrated in these poems were claimed as ancestors by families in\nWales?\n\nAt all events it is clear that the author of the entries in the\nHistoria Brittonum knew of ancient British poets. _Neirin_ and\n_Taliessin_ are only two out of five names recorded by him, the rest\napparently being altogether unknown from other sources[161]. It is\ntrue that he places all these persons about a generation before Urien\nand Rhydderch Hen, but chronological accuracy is hardly to be expected\nin references to such a remote period. Certainly we should note that\nthe last British king mentioned in these entries is a certain Cadafael\n(_Catgabail Catguommed_), who is said to have escaped alone from the\nbattle in which Penda was killed (A.D. 655). The wording of this\npassage (\u00a7 65) seems rather to suggest acquaintance with a poem on the\nsubject.\n\nWe have seen now that the persons and events celebrated in the poems\nbelong to a period extending roughly from 500 to 650 and that there\nare ancient records of famous British poets, who are referred to\nthe earlier part of this period and of whom two are traditionally\nassociated with the poems. Next we must notice that the poems\nthemselves, even in the corrupt and often unintelligible form in\nwhich they are preserved, plainly show all the marks of Stage I of\nour scheme. Their characteristics are those of court-poetry, but they\nnever attain to true narrative. For analogies to the poems which deal\nwith Urien we can hardly do better than turn to the court-poetry of\nthe Viking Age (cf. pp. 15 f., 91); for the Gododin poems perhaps the\nbest parallels are to be found in the Battle of Maldon and the Story\nof Igor's Expedition, though in both the latter the narrative element\nis much more fully developed. Taking all the evidence into account,\nit seems to me that the choice lies between two alternatives: either\nthe poems really are works of Stage I, which have survived from the\nHeroic Age itself, or they are exceedingly clever imitations of such\nworks, composed at a time when the latter were still in existence.\nThe decision between these two alternatives must of course be left to\nexperts. In the meantime we shall be ready to admit that the poems are\nextremely corrupt, and that in some cases perhaps we have nothing more\nthan disjecta membra of earlier pieces. But until conclusive evidence\nis brought forward it seems to me highly improbable that the original\npoems have been entirely lost[162].\n\nThe history of Cumbrian heroic poetry is easily intelligible when\ntaken in connection with the national history. It is probable enough\nthat on the withdrawal of the legions large portions of the country\nwere occupied by northern Britons from beyond the Wall--who are\nrepresented in tradition by Cunedda and his sons[163]. These were\ndoubtless affected by Roman influence to a very much less degree\nthan the inhabitants of the province; and the growth of heroic poetry\nduring the sixth century may be satisfactorily accounted for by the\nwealth and prosperity which would naturally accrue to their princely\nfamilies during the early days of their dominion. It was probably not\nuntil the time of Aethelfrith that their power was really broken.\nBut the following half century was a most disastrous period, ending\nin the permanent obliteration of their nationality--in a political\nsense--throughout the whole region between the Dee and the Clyde. Any\nrecords which survived must owe their preservation, ultimately at\nleast, to refugees who escaped into the Welsh highlands.\n\nNow we can see why so many place-names (Reged, Catraeth and dozens of\nothers) are incapable of identification. But further, the conditions in\nWales, the poorest and probably the most backward part of the province,\nwere doubtless highly unfavourable to the development of heroic poetry.\nUnder such conditions we should expect that narrative poems would\nrapidly disintegrate into the semblance of folk-tales; and it may be\nthat here we have the explanation of the medieval stories of Arthur. At\nall events they show a certain resemblance to the Russian stories of\nVladimir and his heroes. But Arthur, as we have seen, belongs to the\nbeginning of the Heroic Age. We have no evidence for the composition\nof poems, which can properly be called narrative, dealing with the\nlater heroes. Here the original type of poem seems to have become\nstereotyped--presumably because conditions favourable to development\nwere no longer present. The only marvel is that so much has been\npreserved.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[157] _Tunc Dutigirn in illo tempore fortiter dimicabat contra gentem\nAnglorum, tunc Talhaern Tataguen in poemate claruit, et Neirin et\nTaliessin et Bluchbard et Cian, qui uocatur Gueinth Guaut, simul uno\ntempore in poemate Britannico claruerunt._\n\n[158] _De rege Roderco, filio Tothail, qui in Petra Cloithe regnauit._\n\n[159] It is possibly worth noting that the Irish annals record a battle\nbetween Oswio and the Britons in the same year as Domnall Brecc's\ndeath; cf. Skene, _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, pp. 70, 348.\n\n[160] This view is favoured by Prof. Anwyl in his _Prolegomena to the\nStudy of Old Welsh Poetry_ (Trans. of the Hon. Soc. of Cymmrodorion,\n1903-4), p. 7 f.\n\n[161] It has been suggested that _Bluchbard_ (cf. p. 106, note) may be\na corruption of the name _Llywarch_. Certainly the form _Neirin_ (which\nis thought to be due to a misunderstanding of _aneirin_ as _et neirin_)\nseems to show that the scribe himself had no knowledge of Aneirin.\n\n[162] The question of the antiquity of the poems must of course be\ndistinguished from that of their authorship. If they are, even in part,\nthe work of Taliessin and Aneirin, we must conclude that these poets\nare wrongly dated in the Historia Brittonum.\n\n[163] In dealing with such traditions it is essential to remember that\nour authorities date from times when (apart from Strathclyde) the Cymry\nhad long been confined to Wales and that they represent the point of\nview of writers living in Wales. If the kings of Gwynedd were really\ndescended from the 'men of the north' their settlement in that region\nis probably to be regarded as part of a much larger movement, of which\nthe traces elsewhere were obliterated by the English conquest.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN THE HEROIC STORIES.\n\n\nMost of the heroic poems and stories which have come down to us contain\nelements generally comprehended under the term 'folk-tale' (M\u00e4rchen),\nand it will be convenient at once to distinguish tales of this class\nfrom popular tales in general. Under the latter term we may include\nall stories which are frequently repeated without being committed to\nwriting. It is on such foundations probably that all the surviving\nheroic poems are built. The lapse of time between the events narrated\nand the composition of the poem may amount to weeks or to generations;\nin certain cases the story may be wholly fictitious--but this does not\naffect our definition. When a story is put into metrical form by a\nskilful poet it becomes more or less crystallised and has a good chance\nof being preserved. In fact the result is somewhat similar to that of\ncommitting it to writing. Stories which are not put into poetic form\nare more liable to become obscured and forgotten.\n\nThe term 'folk-tale[164]' is of less wide application. Probably\ndifferent scholars would define it in different ways; but in this\nbook it is applied only to stories dealing with anonymous characters.\nThe hero or heroine (villain etc.) is described either (1) as 'the\nman,' 'the girl,' etc., or (2) by some common name such as Jack or\nHans, which conveys no means of identification, or (3) by a name\nwhich is obviously made to suit his or her special circumstances or\ncharacteristics, such as Aschenbr\u00f6del or Sneewitchen. It will be seen\nthat this limitation would not prevent us from regarding stories about\nthe gods as folk-tales in origin; for most of the gods bear descriptive\nnames, e.g. Thunor, Frig, Balder, Frey. Yet by the time of our earliest\nauthorities these names had come to denote definite personalities; and\nconsequently we must classify such stories in a separate category,\nnamely as myths. On the other hand it must not be assumed that the\npresence of supernatural features, in some form or other, is a\nnecessary characteristic of folk-tales. Such features do indeed occur\nvery frequently; but that is due merely to the fact that in illiterate\nsocieties the marvellous has a special attraction for men's minds.\n\nInto the origin of folk-tales in general we need not enter here. Some\napparently spring from attempts to account for natural phenomena,\nsocial customs or religious rites. Others are probably founded on\nadventures, real or fictitious, of individuals whose names have been\nforgotten. Thus, to take an instance, the story of Alfred and the\ncakes is not a folk-tale according to our standard; but if the king's\nname had been forgotten we should have no hesitation in regarding it\nas such. Again, there can be no doubt that many modern folk-tales are\nderived ultimately from literary sources. In the same way we must\nregard it as possible that in earlier times many folk-tales were\ndescended from heroic poems.\n\nProf. Olrik[165] has pointed out that it is possible very often to\ndistinguish between the Danish and Norse sources followed by Saxo in\nhis History. One of the safest criteria is the presence or absence of\ncharacters whose names are not given. In stories of Norse origin, as in\nOld Norse literature generally, it is customary for every character to\nhave a name--a characteristic which also distinguishes the old heroic\npoetry. In stories derived from Danish sources on the other hand the\ncharacters mentioned by name are few in number. A good instance is\nto be found in the story of Ingellus (Ingeld), which in consequence\nof the loss of proper names has been torn right away from its true\nconnections--as may be seen by a comparison with Beowulf. Yet there\ncan be little doubt, as we have seen, that this story is ultimately\nderived from heroic poems. It would appear then that Danish tradition\ntended to approximate to the folk-tale.\n\nIf heroic stories sometimes passed into folk-tales it is still clearer\nthat the latter tended to make their way into heroic stories. We\nshall see shortly that even the early heroic poems relate a number of\nincidents which seem to be derived from folk-tales, while in the later\nforms of the stories such incidents become more and more frequent, most\ncommonly in connection with the childhood or ancestry of the hero.\nThe same phenomenon occurs of course in stories of famous men which\nhave nothing to do with heroic poetry. Thus there is a widely spread\nfolk-tale (told of the god Thor in Old Norse literature), which relates\nhow some animal, a goat, reindeer or calf, is killed and eaten, but\ncare is taken not to break any of its bones. Then on the following day\nthe hero restores the animal to life. In the Historia Brittonum (cap.\n32) this story is related of St Germain, the well known bishop of\nAuxerre.\n\nIt is a more difficult question and one which we shall have to discuss\nlater whether any of the heroic stories are wholly derived from\nfolk-tales. The story of Balder bears the stamp of a folk-tale, for\nthe chief characters (Balder, H\u00f6\u00f0r, Nanna) have names with an obvious\nmeaning. But it is only in Saxo's History that this story appears in\na heroic setting; and though his account seems to be more primitive\nin several respects than that given by the Norse authorities, there\nis some reason for suspecting that either he himself or one of his\n(comparatively recent) predecessors was responsible for the setting.\nIt should be observed however that the occurrence of one or more names\nwith obvious meanings does not in itself prove that a story is derived\nfrom a folk-tale. Thus in the story of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni the fact that\nthe heroine (in contrast with the other characters) bears a name which\nmeans 'war' does not of necessity involve her origin in a folk-tale any\nmore than that of her namesake, the abbess of Whitby.\n\nApart from the distinguishing feature with which we have been dealing\nfolk-tales as a class have certain general characteristics which may be\nappreciated by a comparison with those of heroic poetry. In the last\nchapter (p. 82 f.) we gave a short list of the characteristics by\nwhich the latter is specially distinguished. To all these the typical\nfolk-tale presents a marked contrast. Some of the leading characters,\nincluding either the hero or the heroine or both, are usually persons\nof humble birth. The opponents of the hero or heroine tend to be\nrepresented as monsters of cruelty or vice, even when they are of royal\nrank, as is often the case. There is no inclination to avoid horrible\nor coarse subjects. Above all we miss those detailed descriptions of\ncourt life upon which the heroic poems are so fond of dwelling. The\nlife and thought which we find reflected in folk-tales is that not of\nthe court but of the village.\n\nIt would of course be rash to assume that folk-tales formed the\nsole intellectual pabulum of the peasantry in early times. No doubt\nwe have to add 'popular tales,' similar to those which formed the\nfoundation of the heroic poems. But since these tales were not put\ninto poetic form--i.e. not into such poetic form as would ensure their\npreservation[166]--they were always liable to disintegration and thus\nwere constantly approximating to folk-tales. Hence, though we must make\nallowance for influence of the one upon the other, it is probably not\nso very far from the truth that what heroic stories were to the courts\nfolk-tales were to the rest of the population.\n\nIn Norway court poetry flourished down to Christian times, though in\nthe generation before the conversion it had come mainly into the hands\nof Icelanders. But practically nothing is known as to the existence\nof court poets in Denmark; and here we have, I think, the explanation\nof the peculiar character of the Danish sources used by Saxo. The\nold heroic poems had been largely forgotten, and what remained was\npreserved only in the form of ballads and popular tales--which in some\ncases practically amounted to folk-tales.\n\nLastly, we must note that the existence of a folk-tale may sometimes be\ninferred when we have no knowledge of it in its uncontaminated form.\nSuch is the case (e.g.) when we find the same adventure, especially\nif it be of a supernatural character, related of several different\nand unconnected persons, whose historical existence may be quite\nsatisfactorily authenticated. But such inferences must be used with\ncaution, for it is not necessary to suppose that supernatural incidents\nin heroic stories are always due to the influence of folk-tales. They\nmay often truly reflect the belief of an age which did not clearly\ndistinguish between natural and supernatural. That the supernatural is\nless prominent in heroic poetry than in folk-tales is due doubtless to\nthe fact that the courts of that period possessed a far higher degree\nof culture than the rest of the population. The same phenomenon is\nstill more noticeable in Welsh literature than in Teutonic. In the\nearly court poems the supernatural is comparatively little in evidence,\nwhereas in the Mabinogion, which are largely made up of folk-tales, it\nis developed to a most astounding degree.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVarious kinds of supernatural beings are brought before our notice in\nheroic stories. In the Northern versions the god Othin is introduced\nnot unfrequently. Thus, to give a few instances, the V\u00f6lsunga Saga\nbrings him into contact with Sigmundr on two occasions: first when he\nenters V\u00f6lsungr's hall at the wedding feast and plants in the tree a\nsword which Sigmundr alone is able to draw out (cap. 3), and again in\nhis last battle when the hero's sword is shattered at the touch of\nOthin's javelin (cap. 11). Twice also the same saga makes him meet\nwith Sigur\u00f0r: first when he chooses for him the horse Grani (cap.\n13), and later when he accompanies him on his way to attack the sons\nof Hundingr (cap. 17; cf. also cap. 18). In all these cases alike the\ngod's identity is not suspected, at least until after his departure. In\nthe poem Reginsm\u00e1l, from which the last of these incidents is taken,\nwe find also a story of quite a different character and laid wholly in\nthe realm of the supernatural, namely the adventures of the gods Othin,\nHoenir and Loki with the otter and the dwarf Andvari. Of other divine\nor semi-divine beings we may mention Hli\u00f3\u00f0, the daughter of Hr\u00edmnir and\nadopted daughter of Frigg, who became the wife of V\u00f6lsungr and mother\nof Sigmundr. As a last instance reference may be made to a passage from\nthe lost Biarkam\u00e1l (Saxo, p. 66), where the hero suspects that Othin is\npresent among the enemy and expresses his desire to attack him.\n\nIn the German heroic poems, which are entirely Christian, we find no\nmention of the gods. Note should be taken however of an incident in the\nRabenschlacht (v. 964 ff.), where Witege in his flight from Dietrich\ngallops into the sea and is rescued by the mermaid W\u00e2chilt. If we were\ndealing with a Greek story we should regard this person as a goddess\nwithout hesitation.\n\nIn much earlier times a very good instance is furnished by the\nlegendary history of the Langobardi. According to the story (cf. p. 9\nf.) the Langobardi, who were then called Winniles, soon after their\nemigration from Scandinavia came into conflict with the Vandals. The\nOrigo Gentis Langobardorum, an anonymous tract dating from the latter\npart of the seventh century, gives the following account of what\nhappened: Ambri and Assi, the leaders of the Vandals, asked Wodan\n(_Godan_) that he should give them victory over the Winniles. Wodan\nreplied, saying: \"Whomsoever I shall first look upon, when the sun\nrises, to them will I give victory.\" Then Gambara with her two sons\nIbor and Aio, who were chiefs over the Winniles, asked Fria (_Frea_),\nthe wife of Wodan, that she should be gracious to the Winniles. Fria\nthen gave counsel that the Winniles should come when the sun rose and\nthat their women should let down their hair about their faces after the\nfashion of a beard and should come with their husbands. Then, as it\nbecame light, while the sun was rising, Fria turned the bed, on which\nWodan lay, and put his face to the east and wakened him. And he looked\nand saw the Winniles and their women with their hair let down about\ntheir faces and said: \"Who are those long-beards?\" And Fria said to\nWodan: \"As thou hast given them a name, give them also victory.\" And he\ngave them victory, etc.\n\nWoden is mentioned also in the Anglo-Saxon poem on the magic herbs,\nand Ing in the Runic poem. In strictly heroic pieces however the only\npossible case is the reference to the passionate love of Geat in the\nElegy of Deor (v. 15)[167]. Indeed, were it not for the Langobardic\nstory we might perhaps suspect that the introduction of the gods in\nheroic poetry was a Scandinavian innovation. But as the case stands,\nalthough this story cannot properly be regarded as heroic, it is more\nlikely that their non-appearance in the English heroic poems is due to\na process of expurgation or elimination. From such passages as Beow.\n175 ff. we may infer with probability that no definite reference to the\ngods would be tolerated after the courts had become Christian (cf. p.\n53 f.).\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the poems which have come down to us the supernatural element is\nrepresented chiefly by what we may call monsters. This is especially\nthe case in Beowulf, the main part of which is devoted to encounters\nwith such beings. We can hardly obtain a better example than the hero's\nadventures in the first part of the poem. But it will be well at the\noutset to guard against the assumption that the story of Beowulf was in\nany way typical of early heroic poetry. Thus we have no satisfactory\nevidence that either the story of Waldhere or that of Finn contained\nsupernatural elements of any kind, while even in that of Siegfried they\nare comparatively unimportant.\n\nThe story of Beowulf's adventures with the monsters seems to be derived\nfrom a folk-tale. In the Icelandic Grettis Saga, cap. 64-66, the famous\noutlaw Grettir, who died in 1031, is credited with performing almost\nthe same exploits. The resemblance between the two stories indeed\ndescends in some cases even to small points of detail. These, as well\nas the points of difference, may best be seen by giving an analysis of\nthe two side by side.\n\n Hrothgar's hall has been attacked Grettir learns that Steinv\u00f6r\n by night for twelve years and has lost her husband and\n many of his warriors carried a trusted servant at two\n off and devoured by the monster successive Christmases through\n Grendel. He comes and offers his mysterious nightly attacks on\n services. her house. He comes to her and\n claims hospitality at the third\n Christmas.\n\n He is left in charge of the He is left alone in charge of the\n hall at night with his fourteen hall at night.\n companions.\n\n Grendel (a male monster) attacks He is attacked by a huge female\n the hall, devours one warrior and monster and a desperate wrestling\n engages in a desperate wrestling struggle takes place.\n struggle with Beowulf.\n\n Grendel finds Beowulf too strong Grettir is dragged out of the\n and eventually escapes, but with house to a precipice over the\n the loss of an arm which Beowulf river, where he eventually\n tears off. succeeds in chopping off one of\n the monsters arms. She falls over\n the edge.\n\n Grendel's mother attacks the There is no further attack, but\n hall and carries off a Danish Grettir determines to examine the\n knight. Beowulf goes to the river from curiosity.\n lake where the monsters were\n believed to dwell, in order to\n exact punishment.\n\n Beowulf dives into the lake and Grettir dives off the cliff\n is seized by Grendel's mother who into the river, just below a\n drags him into her cave, where waterfall. He climbs up beneath\n there is a bright fire. Beowulf's the waterfall and finds a cave\n followers and the Danes remain there with a fire in it. The\n above on the bank. priest Steinn waits for him on\n the cliff.\n\n The monster overthrows Beowulf Grettir on reaching the cave is\n and attacks him with a dirk attacked by a huge male monster\n (_seax_); but he succeeds in armed with a _heptisax_[168].\n chopping her asunder with a huge This snaps at the first thrust;\n sword which he finds in the cave. and as the monster reaches back\n After slaying her he comes upon for a sword which is hanging\n the dead Grendel and cuts off his behind him, Grettir slashes him\n head. He also sees a quantity of down the front. Afterwards he\n treasure. finds the remains of the two\n missing men in the cave.\n\n The lake is stained with the The river is stained with the\n monster's blood. All think that monster's blood, and Steinn,\n Beowulf has perished, and the thinking that Grettir has\n Danes return home; but Beowulf's perished, leaves the cliff.\n followers remain on the bank.\n\nThere can scarcely be any doubt that these two stories are connected in\nsome way. Some scholars indeed hold that the Icelandic story is derived\nfrom the other; but the discrepancies seem to me to be too great for\nthis to be probable. Moreover there is another Scandinavian story\nwhich has to be taken into account. This is contained in Orms Th\u00e1ttr\nStorolfssonar[169], a document which dates from the fourteenth century,\nand also in later ballads from Sweden and the Faroes. According to the\nstory Ormr was an Icelander who lived towards the end of the tenth\ncentury. Like Beowulf and Grettir he had a reputation for laziness in\nhis youth. In his time an island called Sau\u00f0ey off the coast of Norway\nwas inhabited by the monster Brusi and his mother who had the form of\na black cat. One of Ormr's friends, a Dane named Asbi\u00f6rn, lost his\nlife in an attack upon them. Ormr then set out to avenge him. When he\nreached the monster's den the cat assailed him fiercely with her claws,\nbut he ultimately succeeded in destroying her. Then he had an encounter\nwith Brusi, whose head he tore open with his hands, afterwards cutting\nthe 'blood-eagle' upon his back. In the den he found a large amount\nof gold and silver. The later forms of the story add several features\nwhich recall the adventures of Beowulf, especially in regard to the\nsituation of the den and the cannibalistic propensities of the monsters.\n\nHere again we have in all probability only another form of the same\nstory. But it is to be observed that there is no special affinity\nbetween the two Scandinavian versions, while the setting and the names\nof the characters are entirely different in all three. Yet if one\nversion was really the source of the others it is difficult to believe\nthat every trace of its original connections could have vanished.\nWith far more probability we may conclude that the story once existed\nindependently, i.e. in the form of a folk-tale, and as a matter of fact\nwe possess an Icelandic folk-tale which contains most of the principal\nfeatures, though the hero has been split up into five brothers[170].\nIn its original form the tale was probably only a specialised variety\nof the type familiar to us through Jack the Giant-killer. Stories of\nthis kind seem to have been particularly popular in Norway--a fact due\nperhaps in part to the survival of isolated savage communities among\nwhom cannibalism may not have been entirely unknown[171]. We meet with\nthem sometimes in quite unexpected places. Thus in the account of\nTh\u00f3roddr Snorrason's mission to Jemtland in St Olaf's Saga (Heimskr.),\ncap. 151, we find a graphic and circumstantial story of a female\nmonster who killed and devoured eleven merchants in the inn where the\nenvoy was resting. Thor too, the chief Norwegian deity, came to be\nregarded essentially as a giant-killer, his origin in the thunder being\nentirely, or almost entirely, forgotten.\n\nIt is no serious objection to our view that Grettir seems to be a\nperfectly historical character; for no one will contend that the story\nof his doings at Sandhaugar is true, any more than a number of other\nexploits with which he is credited. The same remark applies to the\nstory of Th\u00f3roddr, whose father, the magistrate Snorri (Grettir's\ncontemporary), was perhaps the best known and most influential man\nin Iceland. We have seen that in the true folk-tale the hero is\nnameless; but his adventures are liable to become linked with the\nnames of historical characters--just as in our own day everyone knows\nof remarkable persons who have had associated with them stories\nwhich really were in existence before their time. In Grettir's case\nexceptionally favourable conditions for such association were provided\nby the man's great strength, by the unruly disposition which he showed\nfrom his childhood and by the many thrilling adventures which he\ndoubtless did experience during his long outlawry. Indeed, though the\nsaga in its present form was not composed until nearly three centuries\nafter his time, we might naturally expect that many untrue stories\nabout such a person would be in circulation even before his death.\n\nJust as the folk-tale became attached to the historical Grettir, so\nit may have been associated with another person in earlier times.\nNow the only character in Northern tradition who has been identified\nwith Beowulf is a certain Bo\u00f0varr Biarki, a warrior in the service\nof Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki. The identification is denied by many scholars, but\nthere are two points in the story of Biarki which seem to me to lend\ngreat probability to it. In the first place as Beowulf goes from the\nland of the Geatas (Gautar), where his uncle is king, to the court\nof the Danish king Hrothgar, so Biarki goes from the land of the\nGautar, where his brother is king, to the court of Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki, i.e.\nHrothwulf, Hrothgar's nephew and colleague. Secondly, at a later time\nBiarki, like Beowulf, assists the Swedish prince A\u00f0ils (Eadgils) in his\nvictorious campaign against \u00c1li (Onela), though he is represented not\nas king of the Gautar but as Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki's emissary.\n\nOn the other hand it is true that no resemblance to the story of\nBeowulf is shown by the Scandinavian accounts of Biarki's origin and\ndeath. In Hr\u00f3lfs Saga Kraka[172], which dates only from the fourteenth\ncentury, Biarki is said to have been born in Norway. His father was\ncalled Bi\u00f6rn ('bear') and his mother Bera ('she-bear'). The former\nindeed was actually turned into a bear by witchcraft. Further, from the\ntime of his arrival in Denmark Biarki remained in the service of Hr\u00f3lfr\ntill the end and lost his life in the final attack made upon that king.\nA reminiscence of his ursine antecedents appears in the last scene.\nWhen the enemy are attacking the king's hall Biarki cannot be roused\nout of slumber, but a huge bear (the warrior's spirit) is seen fighting\namong the king's knights.\n\nSaxo says nothing about Biarki's origin and it may be that the story\ngiven in the saga was unknown in his time. At all events it is\ndoubtless derived from a folk-tale. In the twelfth century Vita et\nPassio Waldevi[173] almost the same story is told of the father of\nSiward, the famous earl of Northumbria, who died in 1055, while a\nfurther parallel is to be found in the De Gestis Herwardi Saxonis[174],\nanother work of the same period. Both stories contain indications\nof Scandinavian origin and we can hardly doubt that the motif was a\npopular one in the folk-tales of the North. Indeed for the version of\nthe story found in Hr\u00f3lfs Saga, transformation into animal form through\nthe agency of a wicked stepmother, analogies are to be found in many\nparts of the world.\n\nIn his account of the last fight Saxo quotes at great length from\nthe lost Biarkam\u00e1l; but here again no reference is made to the bear\nmotif[175]. We may note however that in this version no explanation\nis given of Biarki's behaviour in refusing to rise from his bed in\nresponse to the exhortations of his colleague[176]. It is scarcely\nsafe therefore, I think, to assume that Saxo's account--apart from the\nquotations which consist entirely of speeches--necessarily represents\nan earlier form of the story than that given in the saga; for in the\nlatter Biarki's conduct is quite satisfactorily explained. There is\nsurely at least as much to be said for supposing that the incident\nof the bear--or something which gave rise to it--has been ignored or\nforgotten by Saxo.\n\nNow Beowulf is represented as an enormously strong man, but his\nstrength is not altogether of a natural order. We are told that he\nwas fated not to gain victory with the sword. It is not only the\nstruggle with Grendel which he wins by wrestling; in v. 2506 f. we hear\nthat he hugged or crushed to death the Frisian champion Daeghrefn--a\nmethod of warfare appropriate to a bear rather than to a man. The\nexplanation is perhaps to be found in the curious phenomenon called\n_berserksgangr_[177], which is so frequently mentioned in sagas and\neven in legal works. It is to be remembered that in popular belief this\nform of madness was connected with the werwolf idea, of which the bear\nform was a common variety. The transition therefore to the story found\nin Hr\u00f3lfs Saga is nothing very strange.\n\nIn conclusion mention must be made of an incident which has been\nbrought into connection with the fight between Beowulf and Grendel.\nIn Hr\u00f3lfs Saga, cap. 23, it is stated that shortly after his arrival\nat the Danish court Biarki encountered and slew an animal demon which\nat two successive Yules had ravaged the livestock in the king's farm.\nSaxo alludes clearly to the same story when he states that Biarki won\ngreat fame by killing a huge bear[178]. Now it should be observed that\nthe representation of Grendel is by no means clearly anthropomorphic,\nthough the human element is much more apparent in the cave scene. The\nvarious accounts may, I think, be satisfactorily reconciled on the\nhypothesis that in the original story the hero killed a monster or\ndemon (_i\u00f6tunn_) in the form of a bear (_biarnar hamr_). In England\nthis story must have been expanded and modified by the influence of the\nfolk-tale of the two cannibal monsters which we have discussed above.\nIn Scandinavian tradition however no such intrusion took place, though\na totally different folk-tale became attached to the early history of\nthe same hero.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTwo adventures with dragons are recorded in Beowulf. The first, that of\nSigemund, is related quite briefly (vv. 884-900), but the second forms\nthe subject of the latter part of the poem. The Older Edda (F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l),\nfollowed by the prose Edda and V\u00f6lsunga Saga, gives an account of\nthe killing of F\u00e1fnir by Sigur\u00f0r; and in the late Seyfridslied two\nadventures of the same kind are narrated in connection with the same\nhero. Dragons figure also occasionally in the German epics, especially\nin the story of Wolfdietrich. Here too we must mention Saxo's accounts\nof the dragons slain by the Danish kings Frotho I and Fridleuus II. The\ntwo stories are almost identical, but the former (p. 38) contains a\ndescription of the dragon and of the means to be used in attacking him,\nwhich is given in Latin verse and may very well be derived from an old\npoem.\n\nThere are certain resemblances between Saxo's stories and the great\ndragon fight in Beowulf, and many scholars are inclined to the view\nthat they have a common origin. The former however in both cases\nended successfully. Moreover in two points at least they agree rather\nwith the adventure ascribed to Sigemund in Beowulf, namely (i) that\nthe hero attacks and kills the dragon alone and (ii) that he carries\naway the treasure in a boat. On the other hand it is generally agreed\nthat the stories of Sigemund and Sigur\u00f0r must be connected, though\nopinion is divided as to whether the adventure was first ascribed to\nthe father or the son. Beowulf is at all events by far the earliest of\nthe authorities. Against this stands the fact that both Scandinavian\nand German tradition names Sigur\u00f0r (Siegfried) as the hero. But this\nargument could have weight only if there was reason for thinking that\nthe story was known in the North before the composition of Beowulf.\n\nF\u00e1fnir is called _dreki_ in V\u00f6lsunga Saga, but he seems always to\nbe represented rather as a reptile than a dragon. It is not at all\nclear that he is a being of the same kind as the dragon encountered\nby Beowulf, which is said to fly and breathe fire. This is perhaps to\nbe noticed, since the flying dragon is also known in the North; we\nfind it mentioned even in old poems such as V\u00f6lusp\u00e1. The description\nof Sigemund's dragon is too brief to enable us to determine its\ncharacter. It is once called _draca_ and thrice _wyrm_; but the latter\nword is used also of the flying dragon. On the other hand it is not\ncertain that the word _draca_ always denotes a supernatural being. The\n_saedracan_ and _niceras_ mentioned in Beowulf 1425 ff. would seem from\nthe description to be animals of the seal-class.\n\nOne feature however is common to all the English and Northern dragons,\nnamely that they are represented as guarding hoards of gold. In the\nNorth this idea must have been very widespread, since expressions such\nas 'bed of the dragon' (or 'snake') are among the commonest terms for\ngold in Old Norse poetry. In Anglo-Saxon poetry also it is generally\nrecognised[179].\n\nIt has been mentioned above that many scholars connect the story of\nBeowulf's dragon-fight with that related of Frotho I by Saxo. To me the\naffinities of the latter seem rather to lie with Sigemund's dragon;\nbut the truth may be that for adventures of this kind there was a\nstandard poetic description which could be applied to any number of\ncases. More important perhaps is the fact that genealogically Saxo's\nFrotho I corresponds to Beowulf the son of Scyld[180]. In common with\npractically all Scandinavian genealogical texts Saxo has the series\nFrotho[181]--Haldanus--Ro (Hr\u00f3arr) and Helgo corresponding to the\nBeowulf--Healfdene--Hrothgar and Halga of the poem[182]. Quite possibly\ntherefore it is not without significance that this person is credited\nwith having killed a dragon.\n\nWe have seen that the two stories differ essentially in regard to\nthe outcome of the adventure. Frotho's death is recorded by Saxo in\nquite a different connection and apparently long afterwards. But here\nwe may turn to the story of the other Frotho, Saxo's Frotho III (the\nPeaceful), for there can be little doubt that the two characters were\noriginally identical. According to Saxo this latter king was killed\nin his old age by a sorceress who had taken the form of a 'sea-cow'\n(_marituma bos_), though the author does not make clear what kind of\ncreature he means by that term. It is at least a question whether this\nstory does not belong to the same class as the others; for whatever\ndifferences there may be in other respects between a 'sea-cow' and a\ndragon, it may be observed that nearly all the dragons of Northern\nlegends make their home by the sea.\n\nIf there is a connection between the two stories--the dragon-fight\nof Frotho I and the death of Frotho III--their origin must surely be\nsought in myth. Fr\u00f3\u00f0i the Peaceful (Frotho III) is the central figure\nof Danish legend and his fame became proverbial even in Germany.\nMoreover, though there is no evidence that he was regarded as a god, it\nis clear that he was the Danish counterpart of the god Frey.\n\nIt may not be out of place here to cite one more of Saxo's stories\n(p. 29 f.). Hadingus, the father of Frotho I, while bathing in the\nsea off the coast of Helsingland encountered and killed a sea-monster\nof unknown species. As he was having it carried to his camp he met a\nwoman who uttered a prophecy of dire woe, saying that he had killed\none of the deities who was wandering about in a form not his own[183].\nIn order to propitiate the gods he instituted a sacrifice to Frey,\nwhich was to be repeated at regular intervals and which the Swedes call\nFr\u00f6blod. This story seems to take us back to the days of theriomorphic\nreligion--or perhaps one should say to a time when certain marine\nanimals were regarded as divine. But is it not also connected somehow\nwith the story of Frotho's death?\n\nWe need not enter here into a discussion of these mythical stories,\nthough it may be remarked in passing that theriomorphism plays a\nvery prominent part in the religious practices and conceptions of\nprimitive peoples, and, what is more, that we hear not unfrequently\nof a struggle between a god or national hero and some theriomorphic\nbeing whose sanctuary or attributes he appears to have taken over[184].\nBut it is perhaps worth noting that in Beowulf also the hero is\nrepeatedly involved in adventures with water-monsters. This feature\nis entirely absent from the story of Biarki and can hardly have a\nhistorical basis. What I would suggest is that it is derived, in part\nat least, from the same group of legends which in Danish tradition are\ncentred round the names Hadingus and Frotho. But in that case there\nis considerable probability that these stories have been transferred\nto the hero from his namesake, the son of Scyld, who belongs\ngenealogically to the same group of persons.\n\nThis explanation will at all events account for the discrepancy between\nthe English and Scandinavian accounts of the hero's death[185]. Only\nthe latter properly comes into consideration for Beowulf the son of\nEcgtheow. For the suggested transference we have a certain analogy in\nthe various incidents which are connected sometimes with one Frotho,\nsometimes with the other. A much better case however occurs in an\nEnglish work of later date, the Vitae Duorum Offarum. In that work\nDrida, the wife of Offa II (the Mercian king), is represented as a\nmost desperate character, and incidents are related of her which seem\nto be totally incompatible with what we know of this queen--whose real\nname was Cynethryth--from contemporary sources. On the other hand they\nagree very well with the brief account given in Beowulf of Thrytho\nthe wife of Offa I (king of Angel). We may compare too the hopeless\nconfusion which prevails in the chronicles with regard to Anlaf the\nson of Sihtric (Olafr Kvaran) and Anlaf the son of Guthfrith. It can\nscarcely be doubted that heroic poetry was liable to mistakes of the\nsame character, although the question has scarcely received as much\nattention as it deserves.\n\nIn the explanation put forward above I do not mean of course to suggest\nthat the dragon of northern heroic poetry is always a distorted form\nof some marine animal. My view is that this is one of the elements\nwhich have contributed to the formation of the stories--playing a part\nsimilar to that of the crocodile in the legends of southern lands[186].\nDragons endowed with supernatural or at least unnatural characteristics\nfigure in the folk-tales of many nations throughout the world; and\nsuch stories are by no means restricted to maritime populations. Very\nfrequently no doubt they are handed on from one people to another, and\ntheir currency is perhaps assisted by works of art. We have to remember\nthat the word _draca_ is derived from Latin. Yet the conception itself\nis probably much older; at all events the association of such monsters\nwith hoards of gold can be traced back in northern regions to a very\nremote antiquity[187].\n\nAs regards the origin of this association--which is clearly unnatural\nand not due in any way to the influence of marine animals--it may be\nnoted that the dragon's lair is often a tomb or barrow[188], as in\nthe case of the one encountered by Beowulf. An explanation of this\nphenomenon seems to be afforded by a story relating to the tomb of\nCharles Martel, which is found in a number of medieval chronicles. St\nEucherius, bishop of Orleans, in a vision saw Charles in hell, and on\ncoming to himself begged St Boniface and others to go and inspect the\nprince's burial place. On opening the tomb they saw a dragon dart out\nsuddenly and found the grave all blackened as though it had been burnt\nup. Here it would seem that the dragon--a fiery dragon, like the one in\nBeowulf--was nothing else than the spirit of the dead prince, and it is\npermissible to suspect that such was the case elsewhere. At all events\nthe fact that dragons are represented as inhabiting tombs is clearly to\nbe taken in connection with their character as guardians of gold; for\nin early times it was customary to bury with the dead a considerable\namount of treasure.\n\nBut there is another feature which deserves notice in the story of\nCharles Martel's grave. The earliest document[189] in which it is found\ndates from the year 858, i.e. about a century after the incident is\nsaid to have taken place. But the closing words of the account[190]\nstate quite definitely that the writer or writers had known persons\nwho were present at the opening of the tomb. We have thus to deal with\nevidence which is strictly second-hand, as in the case of more than\none remarkable story told by Bede. The explanation lies no doubt in\nthe fact that the men of that age did not clearly distinguish between\nthe supernatural and that which is merely unusual. At such a time if a\nperson asserted that he had seen a fiery dragon, his statement would be\nreceived doubtless with wonder but not necessarily with incredulity. As\na matter of fact we find it stated in the Saxon Chronicle[191], _sub\nanno_ 793, that in that year fiery dragons were seen flying in the air.\nIt cannot therefore be assumed with safety either that the killer of a\ndragon must be a fictitious person or that the adventure itself must\nhave been invented long after the hero's time.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn conclusion we have to take account of supernatural properties\npossessed by beings which in themselves are natural. As an instance we\nmay take the speeches of the birds (nuthatches) which in F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l 32\nff. warn Sigur\u00f0r of the treachery prepared for him by Reginn. Similar\nstories occur elsewhere in Old Norse literature. Absurd as this belief\nmay seem we have good contemporary evidence for its existence in\nProcopius' account of the Warni, which we discussed in the last chapter\n(p. 97 f.).\n\nUnder the same head may be mentioned the faculty ascribed to various\npersons of being able to change into wolves or bears. As instances\nwe may mention the case of Sigmundr and Sinfi\u00f6tli given in V\u00f6lsunga\nSaga, cap. 8, and the story of Biarki discussed above. For the latter\nwe have already suggested an explanation. But though the motif may\nnot have been a common one in heroic poetry--as compared with sagas\nrelating to the Viking Age--there can be no doubt that the belief in\nshape-changing goes back to a remote antiquity. It is of frequent\noccurrence in poems and stories dealing with the gods, while similar\nideas are widely prevalent among primitive peoples at the present day.\n\nAmong other supernatural characteristics may be mentioned that of\ninvulnerability, through the use of magic which rendered all weapons\nharmless--a feature found in Beowulf (in the case of Grendel) as well\nas in later works. Often too heroes are capable of superhuman powers\nof strength or endurance, as in Beow. 377 ff., 544 ff.[192], though\nmany of these cases may be set down to mere exaggeration. On the whole\nhowever such characteristics are scarcely as prominent as they are in\nthe heroic stories of other nations.\n\nThe love of the marvellous is more strikingly displayed in Procopius'\naccount of Britain (_Goth._ IV 20) than in any of the poems which have\ncome down to us. In the first place he says that the whole country\nbeyond the great wall (i.e. the Roman Wall) was inhabited only by\nsnakes and wild beasts, and that if any man ventured there he would\ndie at once from the pestilential atmosphere. Then he goes on to say\nthat Britain was the dwelling place of the spirits of the dead, and\ndescribes in detail how certain people who dwelt on the Frankish coast\nferried the souls across. As to the truth of this story Procopius\nhimself expresses scepticism; yet he states that he had heard it\nfrom numerous witnesses. It is scarcely permissible therefore to\nsuppose that he had been victimised by a humorist. More probably he is\nreporting stories actually current among the Teutonic soldiery in the\nRoman army, which doubtless contained adventurers from many distant\nlands. In short we have here to do with folk-tales[193] which had\nbeen localised in Britain and were believed to represent its condition\ntruly at the very time when Procopius was writing. It is exceedingly\nremarkable that such stories should obtain credence at a time when,\nas we know from more than one source, there was quite a considerable\namount of communication between Britain and the Continent. Indeed\nProcopius himself says that large numbers of English emigrants had\nrecently settled within the Frankish dominions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have seen that many of\nthe heroic stories contain elements derived from myth and\nfolk-tale. The distinction which we have drawn between the two\ncategories is that only the former deals with definite--though\nunhistorical--personalities[194]. It is commonly held that myth is\na necessary element in heroic stories; but this is a question which\nwe must reserve for discussion in the next chapter. Further, we have\nseen that the presence of supernatural elements does not necessarily\nmean that the stories in which they occur were composed or modified\nlong after the events which they relate; that, on the contrary, such\nelements are to be found in contemporary or almost contemporary\nnarratives. They must be taken as faithful reflections of the beliefs\nand ideas of an uncritical age. But it is scarcely correct to regard\nthese elements as the distinctive characteristics of heroic poetry.\nTheir chief domain in reality is the folk-tale, a far more primitive\nform of composition, which without doubt was in existence during the\nsame period. The truly distinctive characteristics of heroic poetry are\nrather those which differentiate it from the folk-tale.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[164] Under this heading we may include metrical compositions. The term\n'folk-song' cannot conveniently be used here, as it has acquired a\nwider signification.\n\n[165] _Kilderne til Sakses Oldhistorie_, p. 18 ff.\n\n[166] Ballads on heroic subjects may of course have begun quite early.\n\n[167] Elsewhere this name occurs only in the genealogies, where it is\nborne by an ancestor of Woden. It is possible however that in the Elegy\nsome unknown hero of the Geatas may be meant (cf. Beow. 640, 1785 etc.).\n\n[168] This word is said to occur only here and in a following verse.\nFrom the description the weapon seems to have been a kind of dirk with\na long wooden shaft.\n\n[169] Fornmanna S\u00f6gur, III p. 204 ff. (especially p. 223 ff.).\n\n[170] Cf. Brandl, _Grundriss d. germ. Philol._\u00b2, II p. 993 f. The\nfollowing pages (995 f.) contain an admirable summary of the whole\nquestion.\n\n[171] Cf. Hansen, _Landn\u00e5m i Norge_, p. 160. For stories of monsters\nwhich suggest savages, cf. Ketils S. Haengs, cap. 2 f., and Gr\u00edms S.\nLo\u00f0inkinna, cap. 1.\n\n[172] A somewhat similar account of Biarki's origin is given in the\n(fifteenth century) Biarkar\u00edmur.\n\n[173] _Tradunt relaciones antiquorum quod uir quidam nobilis, quem\nDominus permisit, contra solitum ordinem humane propaginis, ex quodam\nalbo urso patre, muliere generosa matre, procreari, Ursus genuit\nSpratlingum; Spratlingus Ulsium; Ulsius Beorn, cognomento Beresune,\nhoc est filius ursi. Hic Beorn Dacus fuit natione, comes egregius et\nmiles illustris. In signum autem illius diversitatis speciei ex parte\ngenerantium produxerat ei natura paternas auriculas, sive ursi etc._\nMichel, _Chroniques Anglo-normandes_, p. 104.\n\n[174] _Illum maximum ursum ... cuius pater in silvis fertur puellam\nrapuisse et ex ea Biernum regem Norweye genuisse._ ib. p. 7 f. A\nsimilar story is told by Saxo (p. 345 f.) of the ancestry of Svend\nEstrithson.\n\n[175] Yet Hialti's third speech (p. 61) contains the words _igne ursos\narcere licet_, the significance of which is obscure. It is curious, as\nProf. Olrik (_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, p. 51) has pointed out, that\nHr\u00f3lfs Saga (cap. 33) refers to bears in a corresponding place, though\nthe context is quite different.\n\n[176] Prof. Olrik (_op. cit._, p. 45) says that Biarki's sleep is\ncertainly of a supernatural character and suggests that it is due to\nmagical arts on the part of the enemy.\n\n[177] Cf. especially Yngl. S. 6: Othin's men went to battle without\nmail-coats and were frenzied like dogs or wolves. They bit into their\nshields and were as strong as bears or bulls. They made slaughter of\nother men; but neither fire nor iron took effect upon them. This is\ncalled _berserksgangr_.\n\n[178] The identity of the two stories is shown by the fact that in both\ncases Hialti is made to drink the creature's blood--a custom known in\nNorway in comparatively recent times (cf. Olrik, _op. cit._, p. 118).\nThe Biarkar\u00edmur tell of two encounters, the first with a she-wolf, the\nsecond between Hialti and a bear.\n\n[179] Cf. the Cott. Gnomic Verses, 26 f.: _draca sceal on hlaewe frod\nfraetwum wlanc_.\n\n[180] It is generally held that this person's original name was Beowa\nor Beaw. The latter is the form given in the genealogy in the Chronicle\n(_ad ann._ 855); but in view of the many corruptions which this\ngenealogy has suffered it may very well be due to a scribal error for\n_Beowa_. This again may be a hypocoristic form for _Beowulf_, though on\nthe other hand it is by no means impossible that the name of the son\nof Scyld has been assimilated to that of the hero of the poem. But in\nany case there does not seem to be any adequate ground for the commonly\naccepted view that the adventure with Grendel originally belonged to\nthis person.\n\n[181] In Ski\u00f6ldunga Saga, Langfe\u00f0gatal etc. Halfdan's father is not\nFri\u00f0fr\u00f3\u00f0i (Saxo's Frotho I) but Fr\u00f3\u00f0i hinn froekni (Saxo's Frotho IV),\nthe Froda of Beowulf.\n\n[182] As regards Frotho's parentage--Saxo makes him son of Hadingus,\nson of Gram, son of Scioldus. In Ski\u00f6ldunga Saga, Langfe\u00f0gatal etc.\nFri\u00f0fr\u00f3\u00f0i is son of Fri\u00f0leifr, son of Ski\u00f6ldr; while Fr\u00f3\u00f0i hinn froekni\nis son of Fri\u00f0leifr, son of Danr.\n\n[183]\n\n _Tantum pene uis celica pensat.\n quippe unum e superis alieno corpore tectum\n sacrilege necuere manus: sic numinis almi\n interfector ades._\n\n[184] We may compare the case of Apollo and the Python at Delphi, and\npossibly the story of Thor (Mi\u00f0gar\u00f0s v\u00e9urr) and Mi\u00f0gar\u00f0sormr. Note\nshould also be taken of the existence of a local tradition--going back\napparently to the Middle Ages--to the effect that the Isefjord was\nformerly haunted by a monster which demanded a human victim from every\nship that passed. It was finally expelled by the arrival of the relics\nof St Lucius, to whom Roeskilde cathedral is dedicated (cf. Sarrazin,\n_Beowulf-Studien_, p. 10 ff.). The traditional burial-place of Fr\u00f3\u00f0i\nthe Peaceful is on the shore of the Roeskilde Fjord; but the two fjords\nhave a common entrance.\n\n[185] It does not of course remove all difficulties. The chief of these\nperhaps is the presence of Wiglaf, who seems clearly to belong to\nBeowulf, the son of Ecgtheow. The discrepancy between the names Beowulf\nand Fr\u00f3\u00f0i is of minor account, since the latter may very well have\noriginated in a title (cf. Beow. v. 2928). On the other hand if this\nperson is really a mythical national hero the name _Beowa_ (perhaps for\nan earlier form _Biowi_) would seem more natural than _Beowulf_. Yet\nthere may have been intermediate stages between the original hero and\nthe person finally credited with the exploit.\n\n[186] Thus upon some of these legends a good deal of light seems to be\nthrown by certain usages cited by Mr Frazer in his _Lectures on the\nEarly History of the Kingship_, p. 180.\n\n[187] Herodotus (III 116, IV 13, 27) speaks of a region in the extreme\nnorth of Europe or Asia which was said to be inhabited by gold-guarding\ngriffins (\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, cf. _goldweard_, Beow. 3082).\n\n[188] Cf. the reference to the Gnomic verses quoted on p. 123, note.\n\n[189] Epistola Synodi Carisiacensis ad Hludowicum regem Germaniae\ndirecta (Mon. Germ., Legum Sect. II, Capit. Reg. Franc., Tom. II, p.\n432 f.).\n\n[190] _nos autem illos uidimus qui usque ad nostram aetatem durauerunt,\nqui huic rei interfuerunt et nobis uiua uoce ueraciter sunt testati\nquae audierunt atque uiderunt._\n\n[191] Texts D, E, F. This entry seems to come from the Northumbrian\n_Gesta_, which were probably composed not very long afterwards. The\nlast entry which we can trace is for the year 806.\n\n[192] A curious light on the enormous strength ascribed to Beowulf is\nthrown by a passage in the Liber Monstrorum (cf. p. 24). It is there\nstated that Hygelac (Beowulf's uncle) was of such immense size that no\nhorse could carry him after he reached the age of twelve. His bones\nwere shown as a marvel to visitors.\n\n[193] The folk-tale represented by the second story may of course be\nderived ultimately from some ancient custom; cf. Beow. 26-52.\n\n[194] Not, of course, personalities consciously invented by an\nindividual brain; these must be classed under fiction. On the other\nhand myth must be held to include personifications of the heavenly\nbodies and natural phenomena--as (e.g.) in Gylfaginning, cap. 10\nff. (from Vaf\u00fer\u00fa\u00f0nism\u00e1l, etc.), and certain Lithuanian folk-songs\n('Dainos')--in so far at least as such personifications are of popular\norigin.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nMYTHICAL ELEMENTS IN THE HEROIC POEMS.\n\n\nWe have now to consider the question whether myth is a necessary\nelement in the formation of heroic poetry. It has been noticed that\nhistorical persons figure in many stories of the Heroic Age, while\nothers do not contain a single character whose historical existence\ncan be authenticated. These latter stories are believed to be wholly\nmythical in origin, though they may not show any supernatural features\nin their final form. But even in stories of the former type it is held\nthat some of the characters are almost always of mythical origin,\nand that their association with historical characters is a secondary\ndevelopment--due to confusion or to poetic imagination.\n\nIn the last chapter we put forward the view that Beowulf, the hero\nof the poem, has been confused with a mythical character of the same\nname, and that the adventure with the dragon originally belonged to the\nlatter. It can scarcely be doubted that Scyld Scefing, the father of\nthis earlier Beowulf, was also a mythical character. The only element\nin his story common to English and Scandinavian tradition is that he is\nregarded as the ancestor of the Scyldungas or Ski\u00f6ldungar, the Danish\nroyal family, and all analogies suggest that he came into existence\nas their eponymus. The brief account of him given in the poem might,\nexcept in two particulars, be applied to almost any successful king of\nthe Heroic Age. One exception relates to the story of the funeral ship,\non which the dead king's body is sent out to sea. In spite of Prof.\nOlrik's doubts[195] I cannot but think that this is a reminiscence of\nancient custom. The other is the reference to his arrival as an infant,\nlikewise by sea--a story told more fully of Sceaf in certain English\nchronicles. The only question here is between myth and folk-tale. The\nstory may fairly be classed under the latter head, though I think\nits origin is ultimately to be sought in a ritual myth. Scandinavian\nauthorities, apart from Saxo[196], record nothing distinctive of\nSki\u00f6ldr, except that he was a son of Othin and the husband of the\ngoddess Gefion[197]--which again points to myth.\n\nIn Scyld-Ski\u00f6ldr we have the case of an eponymous ancestor appearing in\nthe introduction to a poem which deals largely with the fortunes of his\ndescendants. But there is no evidence that his own deeds ever formed\nthe subject of an independent heroic poem. It would be somewhat hasty\ntherefore to use this case as an argument for the origin of characters\nwho are brought before us in the main action of heroic poems.\n\nNext we may take the story of Weland, as to the mythical origin of\nwhich nearly all scholars seem to be agreed. It has indeed a historical\nor semi-historical connection in the fact that Weland is represented\nas the father of Widia (Wudga), i.e. the early Gothic hero Vidigoia\nmentioned by Jordanes (cf. p. 27); but this is held to be a secondary\nelement in the story. In its original form the story is believed to\nhave dealt only with the incidents related in V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a, viz. (i)\nthe adventure with the swan-maidens, (ii) Weland's imprisonment by\nNithhad and his revenge[198]. Behind the story itself however there\nlies a widespread belief in the existence of a supernatural smith of\nthis name. Several places in Germany (Westphalia and Holstein) are\nreputed to be the scene of his operations, while in this country he\nis connected with the cromlech called Wayland Smith, near Ashdown in\nBerkshire. In its ultimate origin this belief is traced to the myth of\na fire-demon. Certainly it is to be noted that the name _Weland_ is of\na very exceptional type--apparently participial in form. One can hardly\nhelp suspecting that it once had a definite meaning, though this cannot\nnow be determined with certainty[199].\n\nNow there can be little doubt that the adventure with the swan-maidens\nis derived from a folk-tale. In this part of the story there is no\nindication of a fire-demon, or even of a smith, while analogies for\nthe incident are fairly common both in Teutonic lands and much farther\nafield. We may confine our attention therefore to the second and better\nknown part--that which deals with Weland's imprisonment and revenge.\n\nIt is manifest that this story departs very decidedly from the ordinary\nstandard of heroic poetry--firstly in the fact that the hero is here\nclearly represented as a smith, and secondly in the cruelty, treachery\nand vindictiveness ascribed to the chief characters. These are features\nwhich would be in place either in myth or folk-tale. But we may note\nfurther that there are analogies for part of this story, just as much\nas for the incident of the swan-maidens. As an example we may take\nSaxo's account of the robbing of Mimingus by Hotherus (p. 70 f.).\nMimingus is a _satyrus_, i.e. clearly either an elf or dwarf, who\ndwells in a cave in an almost inaccessible forest. Hotherus surprises\nand binds him and then takes away his sword and a magical ring. A\nconnection between the two stories is shown even in the name, for\nWeland's most famous sword is called Mimming[200]. For a more remote\nparallel we may compare the story of Loki and Andvari. Indeed the\nspoiling of a dwarf is quite a common motif in Northern tales, while at\nthe same time such beings are constantly credited with extraordinary\nskill in metallurgy. The distinctive feature in the story of Weland,\napart from the revenge, is that sympathy is on the side of the smith.\n\nIt is the end of the story--where Weland (V\u00f6lundr) rises into the air\nand flies away--that is supposed to point most clearly to a fire-myth.\nBut this feature cannot be traced except in the Norse version[201].\nMoreover here we have also the adventure with the flying swan-maidens,\nin whose case there is no suspicion of such a myth. Setting aside this\nincident the story is perfectly explicable as a folk-tale founded on\nactual experience. There can be no doubt that in the Heroic Age--and\nindeed in much earlier times--princes were especially anxious to obtain\nslaves, whether foreigners or not, who were skilled in metallurgy. And\nit is by no means incredible that such slaves were sometimes lamed in\norder to prevent any attempt at escape--although, quite apart from this\nexplanation, smith's work may be regarded as a vocation natural to the\nlame man, just as minstrelsy to the blind. Further, it is likely enough\nthat servile smiths, when cruelly treated, would take any opportunity\nthat presented itself of avenging themselves on their masters. For\nthe murder of Nithhad's sons we have a somewhat striking historical\nparallel in Eugippus' Life of St Severinus (cap. 8). Feletheus, king of\nthe Rugii, who were settled on the Danube in the time of Odoacer, had a\nyoung son who one day was entrapped by some goldsmiths in the queen's\nservice. They threatened to take his life; but the saint intervened and\nrescued the boy on condition of the smiths obtaining their freedom[202].\n\nWhat seems to me to be really the most remarkable feature in the\nstory is that a person in this position should come to be made the\nsubject of heroic or semi-heroic poetry; for it is plain enough from\nmany sources, especially Saxo's History, that smiths were generally\nregarded with deep aversion. In Deor's Elegy Weland is said to be a\nmore distinguished man than Nithhad; in V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a he is called a\nchief of the elves, while the introduction makes him the son of a king\nof the Finns. Yet, except in the late Thi\u00f0reks Saga, his father's name\nis never given, and none of our authorities credit him with possessing\na following of his own.\n\nNow is there any real necessity for the assumption that Weland's\nrelationship to Widia is a secondary development? It is found in two\nof the three national versions of the story[203], and hence dates back\nin all probability at least to the sixth century. It is not found in\nthe V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a; but then Widia is altogether forgotten or unknown in\nNorthern tradition. Moreover there is a distinct reference to offspring\nof Weland and Beaduhild at the end of the poem. Once grant that the\nrelationship is old and the reason for the heroic treatment of the\nstory becomes obvious. It is merely the reflection of the son's fame\nupon the father. As Widia is never said to be the son of anyone else\nthe probability is that he was supposed to be illegitimate, and that a\nstory was soon current as to his being the offspring of a union between\na princess and a bondsmith. In such a case there would be a natural\ntendency to the accumulation of material from folk-tales about his\nparentage.\n\nIf this view is correct the story must of course come originally\nfrom the Goths or some neighbouring people. I cannot see that the\nWestphalian traditions are any more conclusive than the Berkshire\ncromlech as to its original home. If Weland was a character of\nfolk-tale and his name had at one time a definite meaning, these\nlocal traditions may have been quite independent of the heroic story.\nThe real difficulty seems to me to lie in determining the amount of\nmaterial from folk-tale contained in the latter. We need not entertain\nany doubt as to the adventure with the swan-maidens. But what about\nNithhad and Beaduhild? The latter name is not obviously framed to suit\nthe character or circumstances of the unfortunate princess. _Nithhad_\nmight be explained more easily in this way; yet a Gothic prince of\nthat name is recorded by Jordanes (cap. 22). At all events there is\nno conclusive evidence in either case that these characters did not\noriginally belong to the story of Widia.\n\nAnother story which is believed to be of wholly mythical origin is\nthat of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni. In K\u00fbdr\u00fbn it appears as the introduction to\na much longer story, from which point of view it bears a superficial\nresemblance to the story of Scyld and possibly to that of Weland. But\nsince this feature is peculiar to the German poem and the second story\nseems to be entirely unknown from other sources, we can hardly do\notherwise than treat the story of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni as an independent\nnarrative.\n\nThis must have been one of the most popular stories of the Heroic\nAge, since it can be traced in England, as well as in Germany and the\nNorth. None of the characters however can be traced in any historical\nwork[204], and the time to which it refers is quite uncertain. The\nNorthern version of the story contains a supernatural element in the\nendless battle which forms its conclusion. It is generally held that\nthis is the oldest element in the story and that Hild, whose name means\n'war,' was really a valkyrie. The whole story then is to be regarded\nas a myth of 'unceasing strife between conflicting powers[205].' But\nwe may naturally ask whether it is truly scientific, when dealing\nwith a story known from three separate national traditions, to regard\nas the original element a feature found in only one of the three. It\nmay be urged of course that the reconciliation, which in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn[206]\ntakes the place of the tragic ending found in the Northern version,\nrendered it necessary to drop the mythical element; and again that we\nhave extremely little information about the English form of the story.\nThe latter remark is certainly true; but the little that we do know\npractically precludes the possibility of a mythical interpretation.\nStrictly speaking the passage in Deor's Elegy (cf. p. 56) is not a\nreference to the story at all, but a matter of fact statement by the\npoet that he had been in the service of the Heodeningas. Hence, in\nview of the fact that this passage--together with Widsith, v. 21--is\nprobably by far the earliest reference to the story which we possess,\nI cannot regard the mythical interpretation as anything more than an\nextremely doubtful hypothesis[207].\n\n * * * * *\n\nThus far we have been dealing with stories which are supposed to be\nof entirely mythical origin. Now we have to consider certain cases in\nwhich elements undoubtedly historical are believed to be blended with\nmyth. As examples of this type we may take the stories of Waldhere and\nSigur\u00f0r. In both cases the historical elements are practically the same.\n\nIn the former case it should be mentioned that the mythical theory is\nby no means universally accepted. Those scholars however who do adopt\nthis interpretation base their view upon a supposed connection between\nthe story of Waldhere and that of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni. The chief points of\nresemblance between the two are as follows: (i) The heroine is called\nin the one case Hiltgund (Hildegyth), in the other Hildr (Hild). (ii)\nBoth stories deal with abduction (so-called) and then with fighting.\n(iii) The man (Waldhere, He\u00f0inn) who carries off the girl has in both\ncases to fight with a man called Hagen or H\u00f6gni. (iv) In both cases the\ncombatants have previously been friends--though strictly this feature\napplies only to the Northern version of the He\u00f0inn story. Now the\nfirst consideration carries no weight at all; for half the feminine\nnames which occur in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry contain the element\n_-hild-_ (e.g. _Beaduhild_, _Hildeburg_), while in the Continental and\nScandinavian authorities also they are extremely common. Again, the\nlast consideration obviously has little validity, except when taken\nin conjunction with the other two. But these (the second and third)\npoints of resemblance are, it seems to me, altogether misleading.\nTo begin with it is hardly correct to apply the term 'abduction' to\nan escape of hostages, such as the story of Waldhere relates; at\nall events the conditions have nothing in common. Then the fight\nwhich follows is not, as in the case of He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni, with an\naggrieved father, or indeed with a pursuing force of any kind; it is an\nunprovoked attack made by a third party in the hope of plunder. Lastly,\nthe part played by the person called Hagen (H\u00f6gni) is quite different\nin the two cases. In one he is the injured father who is wholly\nresponsible for the fight; in the other he is a vassal of Gunther\n(Guthhere), who is only drawn into it, with great reluctance, through\nthe obligation of avenging his nephew (Patufrit), who has already been\nslain.\n\nIt is true that a different version of the story appears in Thi\u00f0reks\nSaga af Bern[208]. Here H\u00f6gni (Hagen) is represented as pursuing the\nfugitives on behalf of Attila, while Guthhere does not appear. Now it\nhas been widely assumed that this version is an independent and more\noriginal form of the story than that contained in Ekkehard's work, in\nspite of the fact that it does not make its appearance till nearly\nthree centuries after the latter--and probably nearly six centuries\nafter the composition of the Anglo-Saxon poem. But the lapse of time in\nitself provides a perfectly adequate explanation of such divergencies,\nespecially if we bear in mind the unfavourable conditions under which\nthe heroic stories were preserved in Germany during the early Middle\nAges. As the stories gradually became forgotten two tendencies are\nconstantly observable: (i) to connect stories or incidents which\noriginally were quite distinct, (ii) within the individual story to\nlose sight of all except the outstanding characters and incidents.\nHence it is only in accordance with what we might expect that two\ndifferent sets of opponents of the hero should be confused. For a\nparallel we may compare the late North German ballad on Eormenric's\ndeath (cf. p. 9), which describes how Theodric with eleven companions\nbroke into the king's castle and slew him. It is generally agreed that\nthis ballad is due to confusion of some kind with the story of Ham\u00f0ir\nand S\u00f6rli[209], who were likewise enemies of Eormenric, though not\nconnected in any way with Theodric.\n\nThe saga itself really contains evidence which points to an earlier\nform of the story agreeing with that given by Ekkehard. For the hero\nis called Valtari af Vaskasteini[210], and there can be no doubt that\nthis expression is to be explained by the rocky defile mentioned by\nEkkehard (v. 490 ff.) in the Vosges (_saltus Vosagus_)--on the confines\nof Guthhere's dominions. Further it is to be noted that the story is\nintroduced as an episode in the relations of Theodric and Eormenric,\nand that the hero is represented as a nephew of the last named. All\nscholars are agreed that this is due to late combination--and no doubt\nrightly. Yet Waldhere is associated with Theodric and Eormenric also in\na number of German poems which are quite independent of the saga, and\nconsequently it is by no means improbable that these combinations both\npreceded and helped to bring about the disappearance of Guthhere from\nthe story.\n\nIn its earlier form the affinities of the story with that of He\u00f0inn and\nH\u00f6gni are, as we have seen, scarcely worth consideration. Yet apart\nfrom this supposed connection there is no case for believing it to have\na mythical foundation--except the assumption that myth is a necessary\ningredient in every heroic story. Whether it is to be regarded as\nhistory or fiction is of course quite a different question and one\nwhich we shall have to consider later.\n\nOf all the stories of the Heroic Age probably none has been more\nfrequently referred to a mythical origin than that which deals with\nSigur\u00f0r (Siegfried). It is held by the great majority of scholars\nthat the Nibelungenlied and the corresponding Edda poems--or rather\nthe earlier poems or legends on which both were based--came into\nexistence through the amalgamation of an essentially mythical story\nwith historical traditions of Attila and the fall of the Burgundian\nkingdom[211]. The original elements of the former are believed to have\nbeen as follows: A young prince is brought up by a cunning smith in\na forest, away from his father's home. On reaching manhood he gains\nan immense treasure by killing a dragon; also he releases a maiden\nby overcoming difficulties and dangers, by fire or water, which were\ninsurmountable to any other person. These two adventures are connected\nby many scholars. Later, the hero falls into the hands of foes, who\nslay him and take for themselves his wife and treasure.\n\nIt is held that this story was originally a myth of light and\ndarkness--applying however to the course of the year as well as to\nthat of the day. Sigur\u00f0r himself is a 'light-hero' and Brynhildr\na 'sun-maiden' whom he releases at the dawn, while the treasure\nrepresents the blossoms of summer which the light-hero likewise wins\nby destroying the dragon of winter. Then, in the evening or autumn, he\nhas to yield to the powers of darkness or winter. The original name\nof these powers was Niflungar or Nibelunge, a name connected with Old\nNorse _nifl_, 'mist,' _Niflheimr_, 'Hades.' Their chief representative\nis H\u00f6gni or Hagen, who, like Sigur\u00f0r and Brynhildr, belongs to the\nmythical elements of the story. Many scholars also hold that the\npowers which destroyed the hero and appropriated his wife and treasure\nwere originally identical with those from which he had won them at\nthe beginning; and this view seems to be more or less involved by the\ninterpretation given above, since day and night, winter and summer are\nconstantly alternating with one another.\n\nNow it will be obvious at once that the story as thus reconstructed\ndiffers greatly from both the forms in which it has come down to us.\nIndeed the only original feature preserved in both versions is the\nslaying of the dragon by Sigur\u00f0r. But it is only in the Norse version\nthat the hero gains the treasure thereby; in the Nibelungenlied this\nis obtained by a different encounter, with two princes named Schilbung\nand Nibelung, while in the Seyfridslied it really belonged to certain\ndwarfs, the sons of Nybling[212]. Again, only the Norse version\nrecords that Sigur\u00f0r released Brynhildr--from a perpetual sleep with\nwhich she had been punished; the incident is not connected with the\ndragon adventure. The Seyfridslied does relate that the hero rescued\na maiden from a dragon; but here the maiden is Kriemhild, whom the\ndragon has carried off from her home. Further, it is only in the German\nversion that Hagen kills the hero. In the Norse version the actual\nperpetrator of the deed is Gutthormr, but the instigator is Brynhildr\nherself. Lastly, neither version of the story makes Brynhildr or the\ntreasure return to their former owners, although--in the German version\nonly--the first owners of the treasure bear the same name as those into\nwhose possession it comes after the hero's death.\n\nIt appears then that the original form of this story has been greatly\nobscured in both versions. The explanation given is that, through\nconfusion with a historical tradition, the Burgundian kings, Gunnarr\n(Gunther) and his brothers, have taken the place (as well as the name)\nof the Niflungar. Hence, in order to form a just estimate of the theory\nit is necessary to examine the various mythical characters separately.\nThese are--in addition to the dragon--Brynhildr, Sigur\u00f0r and the\nNiflungar, including H\u00f6gni.\n\nThe evidence for believing that Brynhildr was originally a mythical\ncharacter lies chiefly[213] in the identification of her with the\nvalkyrie Sigrdr\u00edfa (cf. p. 13), who is mentioned only in the Norse\nversion. The identity of the two characters is clearly recognised in\nthe Helrei\u00f0 Brynhildar and also in the prose authorities. On the other\nhand it is not recognised in Gr\u00edpissp\u00e1, which is supposed to be a late\nwork, while the other poems leave it uncertain. The evidence therefore\non the whole is not very strong.\n\nIn the case of Sigur\u00f0r the evidence, apart from the valkyrie incident,\nrests upon his being the slayer of the dragon. But it is agreed that\nthis part of the story must be connected with the similar adventure\nattributed by Beowulf to Sigemund (Sigmundr); so that the question at\nissue is whether the exploit was first related of the father or the\nson. We have already seen (p. 123) that the argument in favour of the\nlatter based on the agreement of the Norse and German authorities is\nin reality misleading. Hence the balance of probability is in favour\nof believing that the incident has been transferred to Sigur\u00f0r from\nSigemund.\n\nIn the case of the Niflungar the evidence depends upon the\ninterpretation of the name. The use of the name is certainly somewhat\ncurious. In the Seyfridslied (Part II) the dwarfs are called sons\nof Nybling. In the first half of the Nibelungenlied Nibelung is the\nname of one of the brothers slain by Siegfried in his youth, while\nthe people who become subject to him, together with the treasure,\non the death of the brothers, are collectively called Nibelunge. In\nthe latter half of the poem however the same name is applied to the\nBurgundians. In the Norse version _Niflungar_ always means Gunnarr and\nhis people (i.e. the Burgundians), except perhaps in the expressions\n_arfi Niflunga_, _hodd Niflunga_ (in Atlakvi\u00f0a), by which the prose\nauthorities at all events understood the treasure which Sigur\u00f0r had\ntaken from F\u00e1fnir. The explanation given for this double use of the\nname is as follows. Originally it belonged to the mythical enemies of\nSigur\u00f0r, i.e. H\u00f6gni and his people--whether these were identical with\nthe former owners of the treasure or not. Later, when H\u00f6gni became\nassociated with the historical Burgundian kings (Gunnarr etc.), the\nuse of the term was extended so as to embrace them also. But it is\nto be observed that the interpretation of the name _Niflungar_ as\n'children of mist' or 'darkness' is not free from difficulty. In the\nEdda it is twice written _Hniflung-_[214], and on both occasions the\n_H-_ alliterates, whereas alliteration with _n-_ is never found. This\nfact suggests that the original form of the name was _Hniflungar_ and\nthat the form without _H-_ is due to later influence--presumably on the\npart of scribes--from German sources, where of course the _H-_ (before\n_-n-_) would regularly be lost at a much earlier date. If so the name\ncannot originally have had any connection with O. Norse _nifl_, etc.\n\nIn all these three cases then the evidence for the mythological\ninterpretation of the story seems to be at best inconclusive. But\nwe have yet to consider the case of H\u00f6gni; and here it must be\nremarked that the demonic character of H\u00f6gni is quite essential\nto the mythological theory. In the Norse version Gutthormr is a\nmere instrument and the person really responsible for the murder\nis Brynhildr herself--a feature obviously incompatible with the\ninterpretation which we are discussing. H\u00f6gni's mythical origin is as\nnecessary for this interpretation as that of Sigur\u00f0r or Brynhildr. In\norder to maintain the theory the mythical character must be vindicated\nin all three cases alike.\n\nNow it has been remarked that Hagen (_Haguno_, _Hagano_ etc.) is\nnot uncommon as a personal name even in quite early times. This is\na curious fact if the name had such associations[215]. But there\nis a much more serious difficulty. It is altogether contrary to\nreason or probability to separate Hagen the vassal of Gunther in\nthe Nibelungenlied from Hagen the vassal of the same Gunther in the\nstory of Waldhere. His character in the two cases is certainly quite\ndifferent. He is brave in both; but in the former he is both faithless\nand cruel, whereas in the latter he is an honourable man who is\nreluctantly drawn by circumstances into a course of action of which\nhe heartily disapproves. But this is precisely the character borne by\nH\u00f6gni in the Norse version of the story of Sigur\u00f0r--a fact which is\nthe more remarkable since this type of character is extremely rare in\nheroic poetry. The agreement between the story of Waldhere and the\nNorse version seem to me to render it overwhelmingly probable that the\ncharacter which they ascribe to H\u00f6gni was that which he originally bore.\n\nI am not arguing now to prove that H\u00f6gni was a historical person. He\nmay be of fictitious origin or even mythical (though the latter seems\nto me extremely improbable). But if so clearly he must have been taken\neither from the story of Sigur\u00f0r into that of Waldhere, or from the\nstory of Waldhere into that of Sigur\u00f0r. Which of the two he belonged\nto originally is a question of minor importance. The essential point\nis that an earlier German form of the story of Sigur\u00f0r must be the\nlink between the Norse version and the story of Waldhere; for there is\nno evidence that the story of Waldhere itself was ever known in the\nNorth. The conclusion to which we are naturally brought is that in this\nearlier German form of the story H\u00f6gni bore the same character which is\nattributed to him in the Norse version. This character however is of\ncourse totally incompatible with a demonic origin; and here, it seems\nto me, the interpretation which we are discussing hopelessly breaks\ndown.\n\nI cannot help thinking that the investigation of the whole story has\nbeen greatly prejudiced by the application of wrong methods. There\ncan be no doubt that a story of some kind--in which the adventures of\nSigur\u00f0r were already combined with those of the historical Burgundian\nprinces--was in existence long before the date of the earliest\nextant records, and that from this story, whether it was embodied in\na single poem or consisted only of a mass of lays or legends, both\nthe Norse and German versions are ultimately derived. It seems to me\nthat, before trying to ascertain the origin of the various elements\ncontained in the story, the object should be to determine the main\nfeatures of this common foundation. The way to achieve this end is\nsurely not by arbitrarily selecting one feature from the Norse version\nand another from the German, but by bringing together all the various\nfeatures which the two have in common. To carry out such a process\nsystematically would be quite beyond the scope of this book, but a\nbrief outline of the scheme may not be out of place here.\n\nFirst then we will take the part of the story relating to the hero's\nearly adventures, which is preserved mainly in a different set of\nauthorities from the rest. The chief German authority is the late\nSeyfridslied which, as we have seen, is really made up of two\ndifferent ballads, inconsistent with one another. The Nibelungenlied\ncontains only allusions to this part of the story, the action proper\nbeginning shortly before the hero's arrival at Worms. The Norse version\nis given in the trilogy, Reginsm\u00e1l, F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l and Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l, as well\nas in V\u00f6lsunga Saga, which is derived from these poems. The account\ngiven in Thi\u00f0reks Saga is mainly a combination of the German and Norse\nversions, though it has one or two features peculiar to itself.\n\nIn this part of the story the common elements are very few in number.\n(1) Sigur\u00f0r kills a dragon; (2) Sigur\u00f0r gains a great treasure.\nIn the Norse version the two adventures are combined, but in the\nNibelungenlied the treasure belonged to Nibelung and his brother\nwho had quarrelled and who are both killed by the hero. It may be\nnoticed that Reginn and F\u00e1fnir are also brothers who have quarrelled\nover a treasure, and they too are both killed by Sigur\u00f0r; but F\u00e1fnir\nhas become a dragon--or perhaps a reptile. The Seyfridslied, Part I\nmentions only the killing of a dragon (serpent), while Part II unites\nthe acquisition of the treasure with the killing of a dragon--a fiery\ndragon--but states that the hero erroneously thought that the treasure\nbelonged to the dragon. Really it belonged to the three sons of the\ndwarf-king Nybling, who are friendly to the hero and not killed by\nhim. As a further common element we may mention (3) that Sigur\u00f0r\nis brought up by a smith. This story is found in the Seyfridslied,\nPart I, and in Thi\u00f0reks Saga--practically also in the Edda, since\nReginn is represented as a smith. Again, (4) both in the ballad\nand in Norse prose authorities Sigur\u00f0r breaks the smith's anvil,\nthough the circumstances are quite different. It is doubtful whether\nwe should connect the eating of F\u00e1fnir's heart, which enabled the\nhero to understand the birds, with the German story that he became\ninvulnerable by bathing in the dragon's blood. Further, we have seen\nthat the awakening of the valkyrie in Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l has practically\nnothing in common with the rescue of the maiden (Kriemhild) from the\ndragon related in the ballad (Part II). Lastly, it is to be observed\nthat though the hero's father has the same name (Sigemund) in all\nauthorities, there is great discrepancy as to his childhood. In the\nEdda he is posthumous but knows his parentage, in the Nibelungenlied\nhe is brought up at his father's court, in the ballad, Part I, he\nleaves his home and goes to the smithy, in Part II and Thi\u00f0reks Saga\nhe does not know his parentage--in the latter indeed he is a foundling\nand suckled by a hind. It will be seen that this part of the story is\npermeated throughout by the supernatural and marvellous.\n\nFrom the time of the hero's arrival at the Burgundian court we may\ntake the Nibelungenlied for the German version, while the Norse one is\nbest represented by the poems from the fragmentary Sigur\u00f0arkvi\u00f0a I to\nAtlam\u00e1l. For the earlier portion we have also to use V\u00f6lsunga Saga and\nthe prose Edda in place of certain poems which are lost (cf. p. 13). In\nthis part of the story the elements common to the two versions are far\nmore numerous and striking. (1) Sigur\u00f0r comes to the Rhineland (Worms\nin the German version) and marries a sister (Gu\u00f0r\u00fan, Kriemhild) of King\nGunnarr (Gunther). (2) Sigur\u00f0r in supernatural disguise wins Brynhildr\nfor Gunnarr. (3) Sigur\u00f0r again in supernatural disguise sleeps with\nBrynhildr and takes from her a ring[216]. (4) Brynhildr quarrels with\nSigur\u00f0r's wife, and the latter shows her the ring[216]. (5) Brynhildr\nbitterly resents the treatment she has received and devises the hero's\ndeath. (6) Sigur\u00f0r is killed by treachery; but the versions differ in\nregard to the perpetrator of the deed. (7) The hero's widow is for a\nlong time irreconcilable, but eventually is married to Atli (Etzel).\n(8) Gunnarr with H\u00f6gni and many others are invited to Atli's home. (9)\nThe gold is sunk in the Rhine. (10) Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni are captured\nalive and the rest killed in Atli's land. (11) A demand for the gold is\nmade and refused. (12) Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni are killed.\n\nIt will be seen that the supernatural is here confined to (2) and (3);\nindeed these are almost the only incidents in which it occurs in this\npart of the story. There is a difference between the two versions in\nregard to the character of the supernatural disguise. In the Norse\nversion, where the two incidents are combined, Sigur\u00f0r and Gunnarr have\nexchanged forms; in the German Gunther is present in both cases, though\nSiegfried, who has rendered himself invisible, is the real actor.\nSeveral other important differences between the two versions have\nalready been noted (p. 13 f.). In addition to these each version has of\ncourse many characters and incidents peculiar to itself.\n\nOf the discrepancies enumerated on p. 13 f. the fifth is by far the\nmost important, since Kriemhild's revenge for Siegfried forms the\ncentral motif of the second half of the Nibelungenlied. In the Norse\nversion no such central motif is to be found. In the prose piece\nDr\u00e1p Niflunga Atli's conduct is attributed to revenge for the death\nof Brynhildr, while in V\u00f6lsunga Saga it is ascribed to his lust for\nSigur\u00f0r's gold. But in the poems themselves no real explanation is\ngiven, and the connection between this part of the story and that\nrelating to Sigur\u00f0r is scarcely more than a personal one--viz. that\nGu\u00f0r\u00fan, Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni figure in both. This however is a phenomenon\nfor which parallels are to be found in other heroic stories, e.g.\nthose of Beowulf and Weland. It is now held--and doubtless rightly--by\nthe majority of scholars that the unity of interest imparted to\nthe Nibelungenlied by the motif of Kriemhild's revenge is a later\nimprovement on the somewhat disconnected story given in the Edda. For\nour present purpose however the question is immaterial, since it is not\ncontended that this part of the story is of mythical origin.\n\nIn spite of the discrepancies noted above it cannot be denied that\nthe two versions contain a remarkable number of identical features in\nthis part of the story--a fact which renders all the more striking the\nvery slight amount of agreement in the part dealing with the hero's\nearly adventures. Unless all analogies are misleading the conclusion to\nwhich we are driven is that the original story began more or less where\nthe Nibelungenlied begins, and that the hero's youthful adventures\nare later accretions, such as we see gathering round the childhood or\nancestry of other heroes, e.g. Biarki (cf. p. 120). We may add also the\ncases of Starka\u00f0r, Hagen in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn and perhaps Witege (cf. p. 135).\nThey appear to be derived, in part at least, from folk-tales. One of\nthese--affecting probably only the Norse version--may be identified\nwith the Scandinavian story of Svipdagr and Mengl\u00f6\u00f0 (cf. p. 12), a\nvariety perhaps of that of the Sleeping Beauty. Another is that of the\nforest dwarf who forges or preserves a magical sword. We may note\nthat in Thi\u00f0reks Saga the smith is called Mimir, a name which recalls\nSaxo's Mimingus (cf. p. 133)[217]. The story of the treasure-guarding\ndragon may also be included in this category, though strictly perhaps\nit belongs rather to popular belief than to folk-tale. From the fact\nthat some of these elements are common to both versions we may probably\ninfer that the process of accretion had begun before the story reached\nthe North. Yet there do seem to be some indications of a reflex\ninfluence[218]--from the North or some region exposed to Northern\ninfluence--upon the development of the story in Germany.\n\nIn addition to folk-tales we must take into consideration also a\ntendency which is often associated with them--the desire to account for\nan obscure name. This seems to be the most reasonable explanation of\nthe names _Nibelung_ and _Nibelunge_ in the first part of the German\nepic and _Nybling_ in the ballad--all denoting the original owners of\nthe treasure. We have seen that in the Norse version, as well as in the\nlatter half of the Nibelungenlied, _Niflungar_ means the Burgundians.\nMay we not suppose that it was really a dynastic name[219] like\n_Scyldungas_, _Uffingas_, _Merewioingas_? In that case of course _hodd\nNiflunga_ (_hort der Nibelunge_) ought to mean the family treasure of\nthe Burgundian kings. But is it quite certain that Atlakvi\u00f0a does not\nuse it in this sense? That it is identified with F\u00e1fnir's treasure in\nlater authorities may be due to subsequent German influence. As for\nthe fact that the name _Nibelunge_ is used for the Burgundians only\nin the second half of the German epic, may not this spring from some\nstylistic peculiarities of the 'common foundation'? It is not necessary\nto suppose that the latter was all the work of one author or even of\none generation.\n\nIn dealing with questions such as these we cannot hope to get beyond a\nreasonable hypothesis, since the paucity of common features between\nthe two versions admits of few definite conclusions. But from the\ntime when the hero arrives at the Burgundian court the case is quite\ndifferent. In spite of certain discrepancies there is no difficulty in\ndetermining the main outline of the story. Even in the most important\npoint of all--the true cause of the hero's death--the two versions are\nreally in full agreement. Gutthormr does the deed in one version, Hagen\nin the other; but in both alike it arises out of the bitter resentment\ncherished by Brynhildr, owing to the deception which has been practised\nupon her. We have seen that this motif is incompatible with the current\nmythological interpretation of the story. But more than this, it is\nplainly not a motif derived from mythology at all, but from real life.\n\nIt must not be overlooked that the Brynhildr and H\u00f6gni of the Norse\nversion are in the nature of character-studies. Both appeal to our\nsympathies, though we do not approve of the actions which they commit\nor allow. Here we are in a region of thought as alien as possible to\nthat of the folk-tale. But it is also alien to that period of thought,\nwhich was most open to the influence of folk-tales, the period which we\nhave called Stage III in the history of German poetry. In such a period\nthe person who destroyed the hero must necessarily be a villain as\nblack as Hell. Between the instigator of the deed and the perpetrator,\nwho by this time was Hagen--whether this was so originally or not is\nimmaterial--the choice was made, not unnaturally in the circumstances,\nin favour of the latter, while the former was allowed, awkwardly\nenough, to drop out of the story. Thus the peculiarities of the German\nversion may be explained quite naturally as modifications of an earlier\nform similar to the other--modifications necessitated by the conditions\nunder which heroic poetry was preserved in Germany. The effect produced\nis somewhat similar to that which would be obtained by converting a\nmodern problem play into a popular melodrama.\n\nThe conclusion then to which we are brought is that the supposed\ntraces of myth, so far as they have any foundation at all, are due\nto late accretions to the story, while the central motif in both\nversions alike is by no means of a mythical character, but essentially\nhuman. Consequently the story of Sigur\u00f0r stands quite on a line with\nthe other stories of the Heroic Age. Most of them contain elements\nwhich may be interpreted as mythical; but these elements are always\nmost prominent in the latest forms of the story. It must not escape\nnotice that those scholars who most strongly uphold the mythical\ninterpretation base their arguments chiefly on such works as the\nSeyfridslied and Thi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern. The explanation is that\nmyth is a growth which requires time to develop. Even Beowulf is no\nreal exception to the general rule, for in the latter part the hero\nis probably confused with a namesake whose story may have been of\nconsiderable antiquity, while the only character in the poem who is\nquite clearly of mythical origin is the first ancestor of the Danish\nroyal family[220].\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[195] _Danmarks Heltedigtning_, p. 248 ff. With this subject I have\nalready dealt in _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 287 f.\n\n[196] Saxo (p. 11 f.) records several incidents of which we know\nnothing from other sources. He represents Ski\u00f6ldr (_Scioldus_) as a\nreformer of the laws, but not as the first king.\n\n[197] This is stated only in Ynglinga Saga (cap. 5); but the question\nto be asked is whether it is likely that such a combination would be\ninvented in late times.\n\n[198] From Deor's Elegy and the picture on the Franks casket in the\nBritish Museum it is clear that almost all the main features of the\nsecond part of the story were known in England. Reminiscences of the\nfirst part occur in the medieval German poem _Herzog Friedrich von\nSchwaben_.\n\n[199] It is usually connected with O. Norse _v\u00e9l_, 'contrivance,'\n'artifice.'\n\n[200] Waldhere, I 2 f.; Thi\u00f0reks Saga, cap. 23 etc.\n\n[201] In Thi\u00f0reks Saga, cap. 30, Weland flies away in a garment which\nhe has made from feathers collected for him by his brother Egill. It\nis thought by some that the engraver of the Franks casket had the same\nstory in mind, since a figure catching birds is represented behind the\nform of Beaduhild.\n\n[202] It is commonly held that this account has been influenced\nsomehow by the story of Weland. If so it is a valuable illustration of\nthe process discussed in p. 119 ff. above. But the view seems to me\nsomewhat far-fetched.\n\n[203] Waldhere is the only English poem which mentions Weland as the\nfather of Widia; but I cannot admit that there is any ground for\nsupposing this poem to have had a different origin from the rest (cf.\np. 57 f.). The variant forms _Widia_--_Wudga_ may be explained by\nEnglish sound-laws, while _Ni\u00f0had_, whatever its explanation, occurs\nalso in Deor's Elegy.\n\n[204] Saxo (p. 158 ff.) connects the story with the reign of Frotho III\n(Fr\u00f3\u00f0i the Peaceful), and this may be an ancient feature, as Fruote von\nTenemarke appears as one of Hetel's chief men in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn.\n\n[205] \"Ein Bild des unaufh\u00f6rlichen, allgemeinen, aber nie entschiedenen\nKampfes entgegengesetzter M\u00e4chte, des Aufgangs und des Niedergangs,\ndes Entstehens und Vergehens, des Seins und Nichtseins\" (M\u00fcllenhoff,\n_ZfdA._ XXX 229). Prof. Sijmons (_Grundriss_, III 711, where\nthis interpretation is quoted with approval) regards the story\nas 'tiefsinnig.' I confess the interpretation is too deep for\nmy comprehension. A totally different view is taken in Panzer's\n_Hilde-Gudrun_, where the origin of the story is traced to a folk-tale\n(p. 250 ff.). It seems to me that this theory is open to somewhat the\nsame objection as the other, namely that it is founded too much upon\nfeatures peculiar to one or other version. At the same time I doubt\nwhether Wate's original connection with the story can be properly\ninferred from Wids. 21 f. The influence of folk-tales is clear enough\nin both versions of the story, but I think it is secondary.\n\n[206] From a passage in Lamprecht's _Alexander_ (v. 1321), a work of\nthe twelfth century, it appears that Hagen (H\u00f6gni) was killed in the\nearlier German version of the story.\n\n[207] For the endless battle there are a number of parallels; cf.\nPanzer, _op. cit._, p. 327 ff. (also Pausanias, I 32. 3, with Mr\nFrazer's note).\n\n[208] There is also a Polish version which has several peculiarities of\nits own but shows no special affinity with the form of the story found\nin Thi\u00f0reks Saga.\n\n[209] The early North German version of this story, represented by the\nAnnals of Quedlinburg (cf. p. 37, note), apparently made Eormenric\nperish in the fight.\n\n[210] It is held by many that this name was originally connected with\n_Wascono lant_, an early German name for Aquitaine (Gascony) and that\nthe introduction of the Vosges (_Wasgunberg_) was later and due to\nthe confusion of two similar names. But, if there has been any such\nconfusion at all, chronological considerations render it far more\nprobable that the transference was in the reverse direction.\n\n[211] Among the exceptions mention may be made especially of an\ninteresting paper by Prof. Mogk in _Neue Jahrb\u00fccher_, I pp. 68-80.\n\n[212] It is stated however that Seyfrid thought that it belonged to the\ndragon. Hence this story is often connected with the Norse version.\n\n[213] The only German evidence worth consideration is the fact that\ncertain rocks in the Taunus and the Palatinate are called the 'bed'\nor 'chair of Brynhildr' (_lectulus Brunnihilde_, _Brinholdestul_) in\nmedieval documents. But I do not see how these names can prove anything\nmore than the popularity of the story. In all lands it is customary to\nadopt such names from remarkable characters, whatever their origin may\nbe. We may think of the cave of Frederic Barbarossa at Berchtesgaden or\nthe numerous places called after Robin Hood in England.\n\n[214] Helgakv. Hund. I 48, Atlam\u00e1l 88. In the former case the name is\nused quite generally, like _Ylfingar_ in the same poem. In the latter\n_Hniflungr_ is the name of H\u00f6gni's son.\n\n[215] There was of course another heroic character of the same name;\nbut this does not meet the objection.\n\n[216] On both these occasions the Nibelungenlied mentions also a girdle.\n\n[217] It seems likely that M\u00edmir was the dwarf's original name and that\nSaxo has given him a name which properly belonged to his sword; cf. the\nphrase _Hoddm\u00edmis holt_ (Vaf\u00f0r. 45), etc.\n\n[218] E.g. the name Schilbung and the references to Norway. The story\nof Sigemund and the dragon also belongs to a maritime region.\n\n[219] Cf. Skaldsk. 42: \"Gunnarr and H\u00f6gni are called Niflungar and\nGi\u00fakungar.\"\n\n[220] Cf. Sch\u00fctte, _Oldsagn om Godtjod_, pp. 35-38, where it is well\npointed out that all the clearest cases of myth in early Teutonic\nrecords belong to stories dealing with the origin of nations or\ndynasties. \"Den eneste udtrykkelige Myte, der udenfor specielt\nreligi\u00f8se G\u00f8rem\u00e5l har v\u00e6ret episk frugtbar i Folkevandringstiden er\nOphavsmyten.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE USE OF FICTION IN THE HEROIC POEMS.\n\n\nThe question how far the use of fiction was permitted in heroic poetry\nis of course one to which we cannot possibly hope to give a definite\nanswer. All poetry which deserves the name claims to do something\nmore than provide a bare record of facts. According to the ancient\ndefinition[221] its proper function is to express the universal rather\nthan the particular--what may happen or may have happened rather\nthan what has happened. Some freedom of play for the imagination is\ntherefore essential. These remarks hold good for early Teutonic poetry\njust as much as for Greek. If we could recover the poems recited in\nAttila's presence (cf. p. 84) we should doubtless find that they\ncontained far more than a mere statement of facts. In the works which\nhave come down to us however the degree to which freedom is allowed\nto the imagination varies very greatly from case to case. Thus in the\npoem on the battle of Brunanburh it is restricted within comparatively\nnarrow limits, while in the almost contemporaneous H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l the\nhistorical fact on which the poem is based is very largely obscured by\na wholly fictitious narrative. We may naturally expect that the authors\nof heroic poems likewise differed in the treatment of their subjects,\nthough not necessarily to the same degree.\n\nAs an instance of a poem which obviously contains a large amount of\nfiction we can hardly do better than take the Anglo-Saxon Widsith. The\ngreater part of this poem consists, as we have seen, of a speech by a\nminstrel enumerating the various peoples and princes with whom he was\nacquainted. Amongst others he states that he had visited the Gothic\nking Eormenric (who died before 375), the Burgundian king Guthhere\n(who died about 437) and the Langobardic king Aelfwine (who died about\n572). Now it is commonly held that the poem is of composite formation,\nand there can be little doubt that additions have been made to it from\ntime to time. This will account for statements such as those given\nabove and, though it does not prevent them from being fictitious, it\nmay enable us to form some idea as to how fiction was used. Poets of\nthe seventh century probably possessed no chronological tables, and\nconsequently they may not have been aware that the foreign princes of\nwhom they were speaking belonged to quite different ages. Yet without\nsuch knowledge the visits of the minstrel may clearly be placed among\nthe 'things which may have happened.' What these poets certainly did\nknow was that Eormenric was a prominent figure in some traditional\nstories, Guthhere in others. It did no violence to the story (\u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2)\nitself to bring an anonymous character into contact both with Eormenric\nand Guthhere, although doubtless no one would have done this while\neither of the two was alive or indeed for some time after their death.\nBut we must not in such cases apply the principle that, since _A_ comes\ninto contact with both _B_ and _C_, therefore _B_ may come into contact\nwith _C_--and conclude from it that poets of the seventh century\nthought it right to bring Eormenric and Guthhere together in the same\nstory. That is a more advanced stage and one for which we have no\nsatisfactory evidence in Anglo-Saxon poetry[222].\n\nNow, if we turn to the Old Norse poems, which date of course from a\nmuch later period, we certainly find this stage reached. Here Gu\u00f0r\u00fan,\nthe sister of Gunnarr (Guthhere), is represented as the mother of\nSvanhildr, the wife of I\u00f6rmunrekr (Eormenric), as well as of Ham\u00f0ir\nand S\u00f6rli who attacked that king. It is to be observed that there is\nno hint of a connection between this story and that of the Burgundian\nfamily except in Norse literature. Even here Gu\u00f0r\u00fan is the sole\nconnecting link between the two stories, and there can be little doubt\nthat the confusion is due to a mistaken identification of two different\nwomen. In the account of I\u00f6rmunrekr given by Saxo, who apparently\nknows nothing of the Norse version of the story of Sigur\u00f0r, Gu\u00f0r\u00fan is\nthe name given not indeed to the mother of Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli but to a\nsorceress consulted by them. If the wife of Sigur\u00f0r had originally the\nsame name the difficulty would be capable of explanation; and it is to\nbe remembered that the evidence for believing that she was originally\ncalled Gr\u00edmhildr (Kriemhilt) is by no means of a conclusive character.\nFor the identification of persons bearing the same name we may compare\nthe confusion which pervades Scandinavian tradition in regard to the\nvarious kings called Fr\u00f3\u00f0i[223].\n\nIn other cases where we find two stories which seem to be wholly\nirreconcilable with one another, the difficulty can be traced to the\nmisinterpretation of an epithet. Thus the relationships and adventures\nof the Swedish kings mentioned in Beowulf differ a good deal from\nwhat is recorded of the same persons in Norse literature. In Beowulf\nthe Swedish king Ongentheow has two sons Onela and Ohthere, the\nformer of whom is married to a sister of the Danish kings Hrothgar\nand Halga[224]. Strife breaks out between Onela and his two nephews,\nEanmund and Eadgils, the sons of Ohthere (who is perhaps dead); Eanmund\nis slain, but Eadgils with the help of Beowulf succeeds in defeating\nand killing his uncle and gaining for himself the throne. In Norse\ntradition A\u00f0ils (Eadgils) is the son and successor of \u00d3ttarr (Ohthere),\nbut the grandfather is called Egill and there is no mention of Eanmund.\nA\u00f0ils again is married to Yrsa, who is both the wife and daughter of\nHelgi (Halga)--which is hardly compatible with the account given in\nBeowulf. He engages in war with a king \u00c1li (Onela) whom he defeats and\nkills with the help of Biarki (Beowulf) and other warriors sent to him\nby his stepson Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki. But \u00c1li is said to be a Norwegian, and\nthere is no hint of any relationship on his part to either the Swedish\nor the Danish royal family.\n\nIn this story it seems clear that the Norse tradition has been led\nastray by a misinterpretation of the expression _hinn Upplenzki_ ('the\nman of the Uplands'), which is applied to \u00c1li. There was a district\ncalled Uppl\u00f6nd in Norway, but it was also the name of the Swedish\nprovince in which the capital (Upsala) was situated. Since, according\nto Beowulf, Onela was the actual king of the Swedes, there can be no\ndoubt that it was the latter to which the title originally referred.\nThe erroneous identification with the Norwegian district--natural\nenough in Norse tradition--led to the idea that \u00c1li was an invader, and\nhence to further dislocations in the story.\n\nIn the group of stories which cluster round Dietrich von Bern we find a\nnumber of unhistorical situations, which may largely be due to similar\nmistakes rather than to deliberate invention. Thus when Dietrich\nappears at Etzel's court, as in all German authorities, including\nThi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern, it is probable that the hero has been confused\nwith his father (Theodemir), who, as we know from Jordanes, was really\nsubject to Attila. This situation cannot be traced in Anglo-Saxon\npoetry, while in Old Norse literature (apart from Thi\u00f0reks Saga) it\nis limited to Gu\u00f0r\u00fanarkvi\u00f0a\u00a0III[225] and the prose introduction to\nGu\u00f0r\u00fanarkvi\u00f0a\u00a0II, which is believed to be derived from the other poem.\nThe association of Dietrich with Siegfried occurs only in Thi\u00f0reks Saga\nand some of the later German poems, which seem to invent combinations\nquite freely[226].\n\nBut a much larger number of authorities, including the Annals of\nQuedlinburg, bring Dietrich into connection with Ermanrich and the\nearly Gothic hero Wittich; and this combination is believed to be of\nmuch greater antiquity, as the names Theodric and Widia are associated\nalso in the Anglo-Saxon poem Waldhere. Here we are confronted with\na question of great difficulty. The association of Theodric and\nEormenric is unknown to all the early Scandinavian authorities, and\neven in Germany it cannot be traced back beyond the end of the tenth\ncentury; in the old Hildebrandslied Dietrich's enemy is called Otachar,\ni.e. Odoacer. Further, apart from the passage in Waldhere, there is\nlittle or no decisive evidence for a knowledge of the story of Dietrich\nvon Bern in England[227]; for the statement in Deor that Theodric\npossessed the _Maeringa burg_ for thirty years may just as probably be\napplied to the exile of Wolfdietrich with Berchtung of Meran[228]. Now\nDietrich and Wolfdietrich must be confused to some extent in German\ntradition, since they are both credited with an exile of thirty years.\nPerhaps this confusion goes deeper than is generally recognised. The\ntrue explanation may be that a considerable portion of Wolfdietrich's\nstory has been transferred to his namesake. I cannot admit that the\nidentification of Wolfdietrich with the Frankish king Theodberht is\nanything more than a very doubtful hypothesis; he may really have been\nan early Gothic prince[229]. Certainly the name was extremely common in\nthat nation, for we meet with four Gothic kings called Theodric within\nhalf a century of one another.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSo far we have been dealing with stories which have been\ndistorted--apparently in quite late times--either by mistaken\nidentifications or by an erroneous interpretation of some title or\nincident. The lapse of time in itself will account for some of these\nchanges, especially if we bear in mind the influence of Stage III (cf.\np. 94 ff.), through which the stories have passed both in Germany\nand in the North. Fiction of a type however, especially the tendency\ntowards combination, is certainly not wanting. In the medieval German\npoems indeed it is widely used and on a scale far more ambitious than\nwhat we have observed in Widsith. Here however we have to take into\naccount the influence of romantic poetry. The nature of the use of\nfiction in the North is not so clear. If it could be proved that such\nstories as those of Oddr\u00fan and the ordeal of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan originated in\nthe North we should certainly have to grant that it was of a fairly\nadvanced type.\n\nNow we must consider certain cases which seem to have originated in\nmuch earlier times. As an instance we may take the Norse story that\nAtli was murdered by Gu\u00f0r\u00fan. Now this story conflicts with what appear\nto be the true facts in two distinct points: (i) that Attila was\nmurdered at all; (ii) that the person who was present with him when he\ndied was anyone whom we can identify with Gu\u00f0r\u00fan. The story that Attila\nwas murdered by a woman is, as we have seen, one of great antiquity;\nbut there is nothing to show that this woman was Gu\u00f0r\u00fan. It is true\nthat Norse and German tradition agree in stating that Attila married a\nsister of Guthhere. This is a statement which cannot be proved, though\nthere is nothing intrinsically improbable in such a marriage. But both\ntraditions represent Attila and his Burgundian wife as married for a\nnumber of years, and both speak of their children. Yet there can be\nlittle doubt that according to the original story Attila was murdered\nby his bride (Ildico) on the night of the wedding. Hence we must surely\ntrace the origin of the Norse story to a combination between two much\nearlier traditions: (1) that Attila married a sister of Guthhere;\n(2) that Attila was murdered by his wife. In view of the story of\nGuthhere's death--which is common to both traditions and undoubtedly\nancient--it required but little poetic imagination to identify the two\nwomen and to represent the murder as an act of vengeance. I see no\nground for supposing that this combination took place before the Viking\nAge. The other story is of course much older; but the evidence seems to\nme to point to an origin in common report rather than in poetic fiction.\n\nThe story of Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli is a somewhat different case. Here again,\nas we have already seen, Guthhere's sister was drawn into the story\nonly in the Norse version and probably quite late. But even before this\ntime it contained features which cannot be regarded as historical.\nIn the Danish (Saxo's) version also Svanhildr appears as the wife of\nI\u00f6rmunrekr; but there is no satisfactory evidence for this except in\nthe North, and it is clearly contrary to Jordanes' account. Again, the\nNorth German form of the story[230] agreed with the Northern versions\nin stating that the king lost both his hands and both his feet in\nthe encounter. Consequently this feature may be regarded as at least\ncomparatively ancient; but it seems not to be known to Jordanes. As\nin the last case, therefore, we can trace the gradual development\nof the story more or less clearly. In its earliest known form, as\ngiven by Jordanes, Svanhildr is said to have been the wife of a man\n(apparently the prince of a dependent tribe) who deserted Eormenric\n(perhaps by joining the Huns). To punish his disloyalty the king had\nher tied to wild horses and thus torn to pieces. In an attempt to\navenge this outrage her brothers gave him a serious wound, which was\npartly the cause of his death[231]. In the last point Jordanes may\nhave been trying to combine the tradition with another account of\nEormenric's death which he knew from historical sources. Otherwise the\nstory contains nothing incredible[232]. Yet the element of fiction\nwas probably present from the beginning. In the earlier stages its\ninfluence may be detected at least in the elaboration of the incident\nand in exaggeration of its effects, whereas in later times it shows\nitself in the invention of relationships and in false combinations.\n\nNext we will take the story of Beowulf's death, which has the great\nadvantage of being preserved in an early form. This story may be\nregarded in a sense as pure fiction. Strictly speaking however it\nconsists of at least three distinct elements: (i) Beowulf's encounter\nwith the dragon, (ii) the hero's funeral, (iii) incidental references\nto the past history of the Geatas. The last element is in part, and\nprobably to a very large extent, founded on fact; so we will confine\nour attention to the other two. The account of the hero's funeral is\na good illustration of Aristotle's dictum as to the true function of\npoetry--to express the universal rather than the particular. We have\nno reason for supposing that the poet had any information regarding\nBeowulf's real funeral. The description which he composed is that of\nsuch a funeral as might reasonably be expected for a man of Beowulf's\nrank and reputation. But the same remark is largely true also of the\nfirst element. Grant that the latter part of Beowulf's career was\nreally unknown and that, through confusion with an earlier hero, it had\ncome to be said that he perished in an encounter with a dragon--nearly\nall the rest[233] can be attributed to the same faculty for elaboration\nwhich we find in the funeral scene. More imagination perhaps was\nrequired in this case; but it must not be supposed that our author was\nthe first to describe an encounter of this kind. Far more probably he\nwas working upon a theme which in his time was already well worn.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have now seen that fiction in early times shows itself especially in\nthe way of elaboration, or perhaps we may say in the structure of the\nstory[234]. The subject itself (the \u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) may be based upon fact or\nupon common report or rumour which was clearly false or even totally\nincredible, as in the last instance. But I know of no story, dealing\nwith historical characters, which can be shown to be the product of\ndeliberate and conscious invention. We have still however to consider\nthe most important question of all. Did the use of fiction include the\ninvention of characters?\n\nIt is not safe to assume this. We know that some of the characters are\nhistorical in most of the heroic stories. On the other hand it is not\nobvious that a single one of the characters mentioned in the primary\nauthorities is fictitious[235]. This being so it is unreasonable to\ntake the view that characters should be regarded as fictitious, unless\nthey can be proved to be historical[236]. On the contrary, until the\nuse of fictitious characters is proved there is a decided presumption\nin favour of believing any given character to be historical--unless of\ncourse his name or some other special circumstance gives clear ground\nfor suspicion.\n\nWiglaf is a character known to us only in connection with the story of\nBeowulf and the dragon. Consequently he may be regarded with a certain\namount of suspicion. But in one passage it is stated that his father,\nWeoxtan, had served under the Swedish king Onela and slain Eanmund, the\nbrother of Eadgils. Now in the Kalfsv\u00edsa (cf. p. 20) we find a V\u00e9steinn\nmentioned among those who accompanied \u00c1li (Onela) to the 'ice,' i.e. to\nthe battle on the frozen lake Vener, in which that king lost his life.\nThis can hardly be a different person. But if we grant the identity\nchronological considerations render it highly improbable that he is a\nfictitious character.\n\nA somewhat different case is presented by another of the characters\nwhich figure in Beowulf, namely Unferth, the Danish king's 'spokesman.'\nThe name does not occur elsewhere in English works, and it is of an\nunusual, though by no means unknown, type[237]. According to the\ncurrent explanation name and character are alike fictitious, the\nformer being framed to express the man's malevolent disposition.\nHe is said (vv. 587 f., 1167 f.) to have killed his brothers, and\non Beowulf's arrival he soon proceeds to wrangle with him[238].\nBut against this stands the fact that his father is called Ecglaf,\nan ordinary unsymbolical name, while his quarrel with Beowulf is\nafterwards amicably settled. It seems to me therefore that the\nhypothesis is at best uncertain. We may note that Hrothgar's other\nretainers (Wulfgar, Aeschere, Yrmenlaf) bear names which betray no\nspecial significance.\n\nA somewhat similar interpretation, though on a more ambitious scale,\nis applied to the story of Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli[239]. The name _Sunilda_\n(for _S\u014dnahildi_ or _S\u014dnihilds_) is supposed to have been chosen for\nEormenric's victim in order to express the fact that her death was an\n'expiation' (O. High Germ. _suona_) of the offence committed by her\nhusband, while Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli themselves have got their names from\ntheir armour (O. Norse _hamr_, A.-S. _hama_, etc.; Goth. _sarwa_,\nA.-S. _searu_). Now an interpretation of this kind deserves careful\nconsideration when it provides a reasonable and more or less simple\nexplanation of the names involved; but not otherwise. In this case\nit is held, contrary to all analogies, that the name _Ham\u00f0ir_ (for\n_Hama-\u00feius_[240]) is extended from an earlier Gothic form _Hamjis_\n(Jordanes' _Ammius_). But even then the etymology is hardly rendered\nany more probable; for _ham-_ by itself can only mean 'dress,'\n'covering.' It is only when compounded with words meaning 'war' (as\nin A.-S. _gu\u00f0-hama_) that it can be used in the sense of 'mail-coat.'\nAgain, _S\u00f6rli_ is regarded--and this is probably correct--as a\ndiminutive of _Sarus_, which is held to represent Goth. _sarws_, though\nno such word is known (in any Teutonic language) except as a proper\nname. What is important to notice however is that a Gothic prince\nof this name was fighting in Italy in the year 405, i.e. little more\nthan thirty years after Eormenric's death. Lastly, we may note that\nthere appears to be no satisfactory evidence for regarding _Svan-_ (in\n_Svanhildr_) as a transformation ('Umformung') of _S\u014dn-_[241]. Such\na change would be intelligible enough if the name had become known\nthrough a document written in Latin letters; but that is a hypothesis\nwhich we need not discuss. As the evidence stands, considering the\nextremely corrupt state of the proper names given by Jordanes, it\nis far more probable that his form has lost an _-a-_, than that the\nNorthern name has been changed. The conclusion therefore to which\nwe are brought is that, whether the story be fictitious or not, its\ninterpretation must be considered without regard to such etymological\nspeculations as these[242].\n\nI am far from denying of course that the etymological interpretation is\napplicable in its proper sphere. We have a reasonably safe instance in\nthe name _Widsith_ (cf. p. 44), as well as in the case of characters\nderived from folk-tale or myth. In particular we have the eponymous\nancestors of families and even nations. But these are not characters\ninvented by the poet himself. Further they are always referred to a\nmore or less distant past, and their occurrence in heroic poetry is not\nvery common.\n\nNext we will take the stories of Waldhere and Sigur\u00f0r. Here again the\netymological interpretation is often brought forward, especially in\nconnection with the women's names; but on the whole it is of minor\nimportance. Now we have seen that several of the chief characters,\nGuthhere, Hagena and Attila, are common to both these stories. There is\nno question of course that Guthhere and Attila are historical persons;\nbut for Hagena this cannot be proved. If he is fictitious, then one\nof the two stories necessarily presupposes the other. But it is by no\nmeans clear to which of them we should assign the priority. There is no\nvalid reason for doubting that both of them go back to the Heroic Age.\n\nThe story of Waldhere contains no feature which can be regarded as\nintrinsically improbable if allowance be made firstly for poetic\nelaboration, and secondly for the influence of Stage III (cf. p. 94\nff.). To the first we may perhaps assign the account of the single\ncombats; to the second probably the somewhat grotesque conclusion of\nthe last fight, as given by Ekkehard, and certainly the discrepancy\nwhich prevails in regard to the hero's origin. Ekkehard[243] says\nthat his father (Alpharius) was king of Aquitaine, while the medieval\nGerman poems speak both of Spanie (Spain) and Lengers (Langres) as\nhis home. Now the name _Aquitani_ cannot be taken from an old native\npoem, and the same remark is probably true of _Spanie_. Moreover, if\nwe were to suppose that the hero belonged to either of these regions\nwe should have to conclude that he was a Visigoth. As a matter of fact\nthis conclusion is generally accepted; but it involves, obviously\nenough, many difficulties. Langres however is scarcely open to any\nsuch objection, and it further has the advantage of proximity to\nChalon-sur-Sa\u00f4ne, which according to Ekkehard was the home of Hiltgund.\nThese districts must have been occupied at some time by settlers from\nthe lower Rhine, as appears from the names _Pagus Attoariorum_ and\n_Pagus Amauorum_, the former of which lies directly between Chalon\nand Langres. We have no definite evidence as to when the occupation\ntook place, but probably it was considerably anterior to the time of\nClovis[244]. Small Teutonic communities of this kind were doubtless too\ninsignificant to be mentioned in the scanty chronicles of that age; but\nthere is nothing unlikely in the story that children belonging to their\nprincely families were given as hostages to the Huns.\n\nThe case of Sigur\u00f0r must be considered independently of the hero's\nyouthful adventures, which, as we have seen, are probably to be\nregarded as later accretions to the story. Hence it is practically\nonly in connection with the Burgundian royal house that the hero is\nknown[245], and as soon as we lose sight of this we drift at once into\nfruitless speculation. The story represents Sigur\u00f0r as wealthy, brave\nand personally attractive; but it does not credit him with achievements\nwhich changed the destiny of nations. Consequently he is not the\ntype of person whom we could reasonably expect to find mentioned in\nthe chronicles of that period. Gu\u00f0r\u00fan (Kriemhild) again is unknown\nto history; we do not even know that Guthhere had a sister. But we\nare certainly not justified in assuming either that such a person\nnever existed or that she could not have married a prince from the\nNetherlands. The same remarks, mutatis mutandis, apply to the case of\nBrynhildr, the king's wife.\n\nFrom the analysis given on p. 146 it will be seen that the original\nstory appears to have contained two features which we may more or\nless safely regard as fictitious. One of course is the disguise; the\nother is the incident of the ring. In the former case the two versions\ndiffer--from which we may perhaps infer that this feature was not very\nclearly indicated in the original form of the story. The incident of\nthe ring also is introduced in quite different circumstances. But at\nthe same time it is really the central feature of the plot; for the\nring is the instrument chosen to bring about the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2--the\nrecognition by Brynhildr of the deception which has been played upon\nher. This is an incident such as we frequently find in modern works of\nfiction. Yet it cannot by itself be held to prove the fictitious origin\neither of the characters or of the story as a whole. It may equally\nwell be regarded as a device for explaining the subsequent course of\nevents, in which case we may set it down as an instance of poetic\nelaboration.\n\nPerhaps the objection may be raised that the sequel--Brynhildr's\nresentment against Sigur\u00f0r--necessarily presupposes the deception\npractised upon her and that this deception is in both versions of a\nsupernatural character. That is doubtless true; but the explanation\nis not far to seek. Both versions of the story are really aware of a\nprevious acquaintance between Sigur\u00f0r and Brynhildr. In the V\u00f6lsunga\nSaga[246] we hear of two distinct meetings, firstly when he awakens her\nfrom the enchanted sleep (cap. 20 f.) and again when he woos her on\nhis visit to Heimir (cap. 24). If Brynhildr is really to be identified\nwith the sleeping valkyrie, these two accounts may be regarded as\nvariants of one original story. On the other hand the Gr\u00edpissp\u00e1 treats\nthe two events separately, like the saga, though unlike the saga it\ndoes not identify Brynhildr with the valkyrie. Both forms of the story\nhowever agree that there had been some meeting, through which Brynhildr\nhad been led to expect marriage with Sigur\u00f0r. Now the Nibelungenlied\nsays nothing of a relationship of this kind. But at the same time it\nstates more than once--without any explanation--that Siegfried had\nknown Br\u00fcnhild and her dwelling. There is some ground therefore for\nsuspecting that a portion of the story has been suppressed or lost in\nthe German version. If so, then the explanation of the supernatural\ndisguise becomes clear enough. It is a device, doubtless an ancient\ndevice[247], for saving the hero's character. Then also we obtain a\nmuch stronger motive for Brynhildr's resentment. It was a case not\nmerely of deception but of faithlessness. There is nothing incredible\nin that, though in real life the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 would probably come about\nin a different way.\n\nIf the story is fictitious--i.e. if Sigur\u00f0r, Brynhildr, H\u00f6gni, Gu\u00f0r\u00fan\n(Kriemhild) and all their doings are creations of fancy--one conclusion\nat all events must, I think, be accepted. Such a story must be the\nproduct of the brain of one gifted poet; it cannot be the result of a\nfortuitous concourse of lays by different authors. The analysis shows\nthat the strength of the story lies chiefly in that element which\nis common to both versions. Here we have the character-studies of\nBrynhildr and H\u00f6gni; for even in the Nibelungenlied, greatly defaced\nas they are, the original outlines can still be traced. The plot too\nconforms to the highest standard of tragic art. It has complete unity\nin itself[248]; all the characters are more or less sympathetic; and\nthe hero's downfall is due not to any villainy (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1) on his\nown part, but to a great error (\u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1). Lastly, whatever view may\nbe taken as to the fate of Brynhildr--a point in which the versions\ndiffer--nothing could be more tragic than the grief of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan\n(Kriemhild), which is common to both. For the creation of a story\npossessing all these features--a story too which lived in different\nparts of Europe for many centuries under somewhat unfavourable\nconditions--we must surely assume not only a talented poet but also a\npoem of some considerable length.\n\nI do not of course regard this as a conclusive argument for believing\nthat the story is based on fact. For even in that case its presentation\nwould require epic form, as well as poetic talent. The decision between\nthe two interpretations rests ultimately on the question whether such a\nstory is more likely to have been invented or drawn from life. It seems\nprobable that some of the characters added in the Norse version are\nproducts of fiction. But here we have to deal with a period removed by\nmany ages from the times to which the story relates, and with a people\nwho had developed the cultivation of imaginative poetry to a very\nhigh standard. The origin of the story however must surely date from\na period when Guthhere and the Burgundian kingdom on the Rhine were\nstill remembered. In that period we have no positive evidence for the\ncomposition of fiction at all, much less for fiction of this extremely\nelaborate type. On the other hand we have in Procopius' account of\nIrmingisl and Radiger (cf. p. 97 ff.), written within six or seven\nyears of the events, practically all the materials for the composition\nof an epic poem on a very similar subject. Indeed they can hardly be\ncalled merely crude materials; for certain incidents are depicted, in\npoetic fashion, rather than related, and even the supernatural element\nis not wanting. The evidence of this passage seems to me to tell\ndecidedly in favour of the view that the story of Sigur\u00f0r is founded on\nfact[249].\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have examined a number of heroic\nstories with a view to determining how and to what extent fiction has\nbeen employed in their composition. We have seen that in early times\nits influence was shown chiefly in the imaginative presentation or\nstructure of stories, some of which were founded on fact, others on\npopular report or rumour which frequently introduced elements from\nfolk-tales, occasionally even from myth. All such cases however may be\nincluded among the 'things that may have happened,' if we take into\naccount the spirit of the times. On the other hand for the composition\nof wholly fictitious narratives--narratives which the author himself\nknew to be fictitious--and more especially for the deliberate invention\nof characters there seems to be no conclusive evidence in the stories\nwhich we have considered; and I am not aware of any others for which\na stronger case could be made out. I am not prepared of course to\nstate dogmatically that such fiction was not known. The case is far\ntoo uncertain for such a statement as that; there is no question here\nof such gross improbabilities as those which beset the hypothesis of\n'rationalised myth.' One is certainly entitled to doubt whether all\nthe characters even in early poems, such as Beowulf, are taken from\nlife. But if we grant, as I think we must, the existence of earlier\npoems dealing with the Danish court, there is nothing incredible in the\nsupposition.\n\nThese remarks apply of course only to poems belonging to Stage I and\nStage II. The effect of Stage III was to disintegrate the stories and\nto introduce unhistorical elements of all kinds. Hence in poems of\nStage IV we meet with numerous situations which are quite incompatible\neither with history or with the older forms of the traditions. In the\nsame period we find also many fictitious characters, not only in the\nGerman poems, where they may be ascribed to romantic influence, but\nalso probably in those of the North.\n\nThere is one type of fiction which we have not taken into account in\nour discussion. Various scholars from time to time have put forward the\ntheory that some of the chief characters of the Heroic Age are really\nwell-known historical persons under fictitious names. Thus Sigur\u00f0r\nhas been identified with a number of famous princes from Arminius to\nSigebert. It cannot be said that any one of these identifications is\nof a nature to carry conviction; in no case indeed have they gained\nwide acceptance. But I cannot help thinking that an error in principle\nunderlies the whole theory. It was scarcely through the greatness of\ntheir power, much less through the effects of their achievements on\nafter generations, that the characters of the Heroic Age acquired\ncelebrity; it was far more through the impression made upon their\nneighbours and contemporaries by their magnificence and generosity,\nby their personality, and perhaps above all by the adventures and\nvicissitudes of fortune which fell to their lot. This is a question to\nwhich we shall have to return in a later chapter.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[221] Aristotle, _Poet._ IX: \u1f41 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 ...\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd ... \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f37\u03b1 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf.\n\u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f21 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f21 \u03b4' \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8' \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n[222] In Wids., v. 112 ff. we find a list of Gothic heroes belonging\nto various ages introduced by the expression _innweorud Earmanrices_\n('Eormenric's household-troop'); but this expression need not be\ninterpreted literally with reference to the whole list.\n\n[223] Frotho I and Frotho III were no doubt originally identical; but\nthe confusion extends also (especially in Ski\u00f6ldunga Saga) to Frotho\nIV (the Froda of Beowulf), who cannot reasonably be connected with the\nothers (cf. p. 124, note).\n\n[224] The MS. here (v. 62) is defective, but no other interpretation is\nprobable.\n\n[225] The MS. once has Thi\u00f3\u00f0mar, as against two examples of Thi\u00f3\u00f0rekr\nin the verses and one in the introduction. Is it really impossible that\nthe name has been altered by a scribe familiar with Thi\u00f0reks Saga? Cf.\nJ\u00f3nsson, _Oldn. Litteraturs Historie_, I 295.\n\n[226] This tendency is doubtless due largely to the influence of\nromantic poetry.\n\n[227] Prof. Brandl, _Grundriss_, II 953, calls attention to the fact\nthat the Bernician king Ida is said to have had two sons called\nTheodric and Theodhere. But is not the date rather early? The\noccurrence of the name _Sigesteb_ in the council of Ecgberht, king of\nWessex (Birch, 395), is perhaps stronger evidence. The name _Omulung_\nwhich is found more than a century earlier (Birch, 76, 116) scarcely\nnecessitates acquaintance with the story of Dietrich von Bern.\n\n[228] The case would be different if it could be proved that the person\ndescribed as _skati Marika_ (_Maringa_) in the inscription of R\u00f6k was\nDietrich von Bern.\n\n[229] It is worth noting that in Widsith, v. 115, Seafola and Theodric\n(i.e. Saben and Wolfdietrich) appear among the Gothic heroes.\n\n[230] This version (represented by the Ann. Quedl., cf. p. 37, note),\nlike the Norse, added a third brother, though he bears a different\nname. But the person killed, whose name is not given, is said to have\nbeen the father of the brothers, not their sister.\n\n[231] _Hermanaricus rex Gothorum ... de Hunorum ... aduentu dum\ncogitat, Rosomonorum gens infida, quae tunc inter alias illi famulatum\nexhibebat, tali eum nanciscitur occasione decipere. dum enim quandam\nmulierem, Sunildam nomine, ex gente memorata, pro mariti fraudulento\ndiscessu rex furore commotus equis ferocibus inligatam incitatisque\ncursibus per diuersa diuelli praecepisset, fratres eius Sarus et Ammius\ngermanae obitum uindicantes, Hermanarici latus ferro petierunt; quo\nuulnere saucius, aegram uitam corporis imbecillitate contraxit.... inter\nhaec Hermanaricus tam uulneris dolorem, quam etiam Hunorum incursiones\nnon ferens ... defunctus est_ (cap. 24).\n\n[232] The Frankish queen Brunhild was put to death in a similar way in\nthe year 613. We may also compare the Thuringian atrocities described\nby Gregory of Tours (III 7).\n\n[233] The chief exception is the part played by Wiglaf; possibly also\nthe incident of the cowardly knights.\n\n[234] \u1f21 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Aristotle, _Poet._ VI 9).\n\n[235] For the case of Widsith see p. 56 f. Supernatural beings, such\nas Grendel, and mythical personages of the past, such as Scyld, cannot\nfairly be regarded as exceptions, since it is not at all likely\nthat they were invented by the poet himself. They figure largely in\nskaldic poems of the Viking Age (e.g. H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l) which probably never\nintroduce fictitious contemporary characters. On the other hand some of\nthe characters in the Edda poems may have been invented in the North.\n\n[236] This must be emphasized because one constantly finds theories of\nfictitious origin introduced with some sentence such as the following:\n'It has not yet been proved that this story has any historical\nfoundation.' Such an attitude seems to me not only unreasonable but\nwrong in principle.\n\n[237] Cf. _Unwona_, the name of a bishop of Leicester who died about\nthe beginning of the ninth century, and _Unwine_ (_Unwenes_, Gen.), the\nname of Eastgota's son (Wids. 114). The name _Unfrid_ itself occurs in\nGermany during the eighth and ninth centuries.\n\n[238] Prof. Olrik (_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, p. 25 ff.) suggests\nfurther that he was the instigator of a quarrel between Hrothwulf\nand Hrothgar or his sons. But I cannot help thinking that his\ninterpretation of vv. 1166 ff., ingenious as it undoubtedly is, goes a\ngood deal beyond what the passage actually warrants.\n\n[239] Cf. Jiriczek, _Deutsche Heldensagen_, I 63 f., Sijmons,\n_Grundriss_, III\u00b2 683.\n\n[240] The true form is probably _Hami-_. It is surely far more probable\nthat _Ammius_ is a shortened (hypocoristic) form from the compound name\n(cf. A.-S. _Hemma_, _Hemmi_). But in that case of course we shall have\nto conclude that the name had been familiar for some time before it\ncame to Jordanes' knowledge.\n\n[241] No argument can be based upon the name _Suanailta_ which is\nfound in a document at St Gall dating from 786 (in conjunction with\nother names which show a knowledge of the story of Eormenric), for it\nmay contain either _swan-_ or _s\u014dn-_. It is admitted that the name\n_Swanahilt_ was in use.\n\n[242] With how much greater plausibility could the name _Eormenric_ be\naccounted for! Had it not been for the incidental reference to this\nking in Ammianus Marcellinus' history, nothing could possibly have\nsaved him from being regarded as a purely fictitious personage.\n\n[243] In Ekkehard's case the influence of Stage III is supplemented\nor amended by erudition. The national names which he gives (_Franci_,\n_Burgundia_, etc.) are accommodated to the political divisions of his\nown time.\n\n[244] Cf. Zeuss, _Die Deutschen und die Nachbarst\u00e4mme_, p. 582 ff.,\nwhere a much earlier date is suggested.\n\n[245] It is impossible here to enter into a criticism of theories such\nas those brought forward in Boer's _Untersuchungen \u00fcber den Ursprung\nund die Entwickelung der Nibelungensage_.\n\n[246] Owing to the great lacuna in the MS. of the Edda (cf. p. 13) the\npoems which dealt with this part of the story are lost.\n\n[247] The story may have come to the North in two different forms, one\nof which related the wooing of Brynhildr by Sigur\u00f0r, while the other,\na later form, contained the incident of the supernatural disguise. But\nit is also possible that even the original poem or poems on the subject\ndealt with this incident, though without altogether suppressing the\nprevious relations between Sigur\u00f0r and Brynhildr.\n\n[248] There is no need to assume that the story of Guthhere's death was\nembodied in the same poem, though the two were doubtless connected from\nquite early times.\n\n[249] It would be difficult to doubt its historical origin if it\ncould be proved that the hero's father was originally identical with\nSigemund the son of Waelse (V\u00f6lsungr), who figures in Beowulf; for the\ntwo stories are almost entirely independent of each other and refer\nto quite different regions. The adventure with the dragon, which is\nrelated both of Sigur\u00f0r and Sigemund, shows that they were connected in\nvery early times. Still I know no real proof of original identity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE HEROIC AGE OF GREECE.\n\n\nThe literary records of the Heroic Age of Greece resemble those of\nthe northern Heroic Age in several respects. Both literatures alike\nbegin with heroic poems which, as we shall see later, possess many\ncommon characteristics. Then, at a much later date, we find in both\nliteratures a new series of narrative works dealing again with the old\nstories. Lastly, in both cases works of all periods, both poetic and\nprose, contain frequent incidental references to the same stories,\ntestifying thereby to their popularity. In Greek literature indeed\nsuch references occur more frequently than in that of the Teutonic\npeoples--a fact doubtless due to the preservation of great poems of the\nformer period, which at an early date came to be regarded as classics\nor something more. Among the northern peoples, as we have seen, it\nwas only in England that any considerable amount of the early heroic\npoetry was preserved; but here the continuity of literary development\nwas broken through political causes, and consequently all memory of the\nHeroic Age was practically lost.\n\nOn the other hand we have no evidence for the Heroic Age of Greece in\nany way comparable with those more or less contemporary Roman works\nwhich enable us to identify many of the characters and incidents of\nthe northern Heroic Age. In Greece the Heroic Age had passed away\nlong before the date of the earliest historical documents which have\ncome down to us; while though inscriptions of a remote antiquity are\nstill in existence, none prior to the seventh, or possibly the eighth\ncentury, have as yet been deciphered. Further, the monuments of the\nsurrounding countries, such as Egypt or Assyria, make no reference to\nGreece beyond the occasional bare mention of a geographical or tribal\nname. Hence it comes about that we cannot with certainty pronounce any\nsingle person or event of the Heroic Age to be historical. All that it\nhas been possible as yet to verify is the existence of ancient centres\nof civilisation in certain localities which figure prominently in\nstories of the Heroic Age. Archaeological investigation has shown that\nsome of these places possessed at one time an extraordinary amount of\nwealth and splendour, though within the historical period they were\ninconsiderable or even uninhabited.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOf the early heroic poetry very little has come down to us except the\ntwo great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which between them contain\nnearly 28,000 verses. These poems are, strictly speaking, anonymous,\nthough from very ancient times, at least from the seventh century,\nthe name Homer has been associated with them. In the Alexandrian age\nthere were critics who believed that the Iliad and Odyssey were the\nwork of different authors; but it is only within modern times that they\nhave been considered to be of composite formation. At present it is\nprobably the most prevalent view that the Iliad was formed gradually\nin the course of the ninth century and that it attained substantially\nits present form about the middle of the eighth century. The Odyssey is\ngenerally thought to be a later work. Its date is set by many as late\nas the seventh century, though it is believed to have used and probably\nincorporated earlier poems, of the ninth or eighth century. There\nare however still a number of scholars who both deny the composite\nauthorship of the poems and also believe them to be of greater\nantiquity than the dates here given.\n\nApart from the Iliad and Odyssey the only early heroic poem which has\ncome down to us is the Shield of Heracles, a work containing 480 verses\nand giving an account of the single combat between Heracles and Cycnos.\nIt has been attributed to Hesiod by various writers, at least since the\nAlexandrian period; indeed the Argument cites Stesichoros as authority\nfor this belief. At the present time however most scholars regard it\nas the work of an unknown poet of the seventh century[250].\n\nIn ancient times there were a considerable number of other early epic\npoems, of which only a few insignificant fragments now remain. Some\nof these, the Cypria, Aithiopis, Little Iliad (\u1f38\u03bb\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac), Iliu\nPersis and Nostoi, dealt with the same cycle of story as the Iliad\nand Odyssey. They seem however to have been of much smaller compass\nand to have treated their subjects in a far less detailed manner. It\nis thought by many that the Cypria was composed as an introduction to\nthe Iliad and the others as continuations of it--the Nostoi connecting\non to the Odyssey. At all events they were utilised by the authors of\nthe prose \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, in Alexandrian and Roman times, for the purpose of\npresenting a connected account of the whole story[251].\n\nThe authorship of these poems is attributed in late writings to a\nnumber of persons--Stasinos of Cyprus, Arctinos of Miletos, Lesches of\nLesbos and Agias of Troizen--of whom nothing definite is known, but\nwho are believed to have lived either in the eighth century or in the\nearly part of the seventh. In early times however--indeed probably\ndown to the fourth century--it seems to have been the general belief\nthat several, possibly all, of them were by Homer. Herodotus (II 117)\nexpresses his disbelief in Homer's authorship of the Cypria; but his\nwords imply that he was contesting a commonly accepted view. On the\nother hand Hellanicos[252], who was approximately contemporary with\nHerodotus, is said to have attributed the Little Iliad (including\npossibly the Iliu Persis) not to Lesches or Arctinos but to a certain\nCinaithon of Lacedaemon, who is said to have lived before the middle\nof the eighth century. Lastly we must mention the Telegoneia, a sequel\nto the Odyssey, which is said to have been composed by Eugammon of\nCyrene[253], probably in the sixth century.\n\nApart from the series of poems dealing with the siege of Troy the\nmost famous of the early epics was the Thebais, which gave the story\nof the legendary kings of Thebes. This poem was attributed to Homer by\nCallinos of Ephesus[254] who lived early in the seventh century--which\nprobably implies that it was not of recent composition even then.\nIt had a sequel called Epigonoi, which likewise seems to have been\nattributed to Homer, though Herodotus (IV 32) again apparently felt\ndoubtful. In addition to these mention may be made of the Oidipodeia,\nwhich also dealt with the Theban story, and of the Oichalias Halosis\nand Phocais, which were concerned with adventures of Heracles.\n\nAll the poems mentioned above were probably composed in quite early\ntimes, though we have practically no trustworthy data as to their age\nor authorship. A number of other epics bore the names of persons who\nwere attributed to the eighth or seventh centuries, such as Cinaithon\n(see above), Eumelos of Corinth and Asios of Samos. These however seem\nto have been rather of a genealogical than heroic character. Peisandros\nof Rhodes, the author of an epic on Heracles, is also referred, though\non rather doubtful authority, to the close of this period. But the\nother epic poets whose names have survived seem to have belonged to\na considerably later time. The didactic epos began, under Hesiod,\napparently before the end of the eighth century, while early in the\nfollowing century there arose new types of poetry, elegiac and iambic,\nconcerned chiefly with present topics and the personal interests of the\npoets, and seldom even referring to the Heroic Age. The last remark\nis true also, though to a less extent, of the early lyric poetry. But\nin the early part of the sixth century Stesichoros of Himera began to\nutilise it for presenting stories of the Heroic Age in a new form. In\nPindar's odes too, nearly a century later, the allusions to heroic\nstories are very frequent and often of considerable length. One ode\nindeed contains almost an epos.\n\nIn the fifth century however the Heroic Age figures most prominently\nin Athenian tragedy. Of the seven extant plays of Aeschylus four or\nfive[255] deal with the Heroic Age and one with contemporary history,\nwhile the last is concerned exclusively with supernatural beings. Of\nthe two later dramatists, Sophocles and Euripides, all the surviving\nplays[256] take their subjects from the Heroic Age. Further, we know\nthe names of a large number of lost plays, both by these and other\nauthors, and from them it appears that the surviving pieces are fairly\nrepresentative, so far as choice of subjects is concerned. During the\nsame period we hear of a few epic poets whose works are now lost. Some\nof these, such as Panyasis and Antimachos, dealt with stories of the\nHeroic Age and some, as Choirilos, with contemporary history. About\ntwo centuries later heroic epic poetry was cultivated at Alexandria,\nespecially by Apollonius Rhodius.\n\nAmong incidental references to the Heroic Age one of the most\ninteresting occurs in Hesiod's Works and Days (vv. 156-170), where\nan age of the heroes[257] who fell at Thebes and Troy is introduced\nbetween the bronze age and the iron age. Herodotus' history abounds\nwith references to the Heroic Age, and even Thucydides refers to it not\nunfrequently, though in a more critical spirit. In later times we have\nto notice especially antiquarian writers such as Strabo and above all\nPausanias. The last-named derived his information very largely from\nlocal tradition and consequently the stories which he gives may often\nbe independent of the poems.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may now consider briefly the chronological aspect of the Greek\nHeroic Age. It has already been mentioned that a passage in Hesiod's\nWorks and Days speaks of an age of heroes intermediate between the\nbronze and iron ages, and that it further defines these heroes as\nthose who fought at Thebes and Troy. To the latter number belong no\ndoubt the various characters of the Iliad and Odyssey and the other\npoems (Cypria, etc.) which dealt with the Trojan cycle of legend,\nwhile the deeds of the former must have been treated in the Thebais\nand the Epigonoi. In the surviving Attic dramas which deal with\nthe Heroic Age the distribution of subjects is as follows. Sixteen\nplays (three by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles and ten by Euripides,\nincluding the Cyclops and Rhesos) treat of the heroes of the Trojan\nwar or their children; six plays (one by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles\nand two by Euripides) deal with the Theban story; and six plays (one\nby Sophocles and five by Euripides) are concerned with the doings of\nHeracles, Theseus or Iason. It is to be observed that the heroes of\nthe Theban story are always represented as belonging to the generation\nimmediately preceding that of the heroes of Troy, while Heracles,\nTheseus and Iason are all loosely connected with one another and made\nroughly contemporary with the Theban heroes. The remaining three plays\n(Aeschylus' Suppliants and Euripides' Ion and Bacchai), if we are\njustified in regarding them as heroic at all, refer to persons much\nfarther back in the genealogies.\n\nIt appears then that the characters who figure most prominently in\nstories of the Heroic Age were, with few exceptions, ascribed to a\nperiod covering not more than three or four generations. There are, it\nis true, a number of stories referring to much earlier generations--in\naddition to those treated in the three plays mentioned above--but they\nseem to have been distinctly less popular than the others. On the other\nhand there is scarcely any reference to persons later than the children\nof the heroes who fought at Troy.\n\nWith the evidence at our disposal it is impossible to fix any absolute\ndates for the Heroic Age. All that we can say is that the end of that\nage appears to coincide with the movement or series of movements,\ntraditionally known as the Return of the Heracleidai, to which the\nDorian states in the Peloponnesos were believed to owe their origin.\nAccording to the story, the Return took place in the second generation\nafter the siege of Troy, and the grandsons of Agamemnon, the Achaean\nleader at the siege, were killed or expelled by the Dorians. Certainly\nit is to be noted that the scheme of tribal or political geography\npresented to us in the Homeric poems seems to show no trace either of\nDorians in the Peloponnesos or of Ionic settlements in the eastern\nAegean--another series of movements which are said to have been brought\nabout by the Dorian conquest.\n\nThe great majority of scholars apparently regard the story of the\nconquest as containing at least a nucleus of truth, though it refers to\ntimes long anterior to what we should call the historical period. The\nancients themselves dated the events in question back to the twelfth or\neleventh century (B.C.). But the evidence on which their conclusions\nwere based is not of a very satisfactory character and will require\ncareful consideration.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBefore entering upon this question it will be convenient to notice\nbriefly the scenes of the stories and the localities and peoples to\nwhich the various characters belong. The scene of the Iliad is laid\nin the north-west corner of Asia Minor, a short distance south of the\nDardanelles. But the stories introduced incidentally refer for the most\npart to places on the mainland of Greece, less frequently to localities\nin Asia Minor or Thrace. The distribution of the principal heroes is\nas follows: Agamemnon's territories, according to the Catalogue of\nShips (Il. II 569 ff.), lie in the north-east of the Peloponnesos,\nincluding the north-western part of what was later called Argolis\nand at least the eastern half of Achaia. Elsewhere (Il. IX 149 ff.,\n291 ff.) he appears to have possessions in Messenia. His brother,\nMenelaos, rules over Sparta and other places in Laconia. Nestor's\nkingdom is on the western side of the Peloponnesos, to the south\nof Elis. Idomeneus belongs to Crete, Achilles to southern Thessaly\n(Phthiotis), Aias, the son of Telamon, to Salamis, his namesake to the\neastern Locris, Diomedes to the eastern and southern parts of Argolis\nand Odysseus to the Ionian Isles. It must not be overlooked that most\nof these districts were of little or no political importance during the\nhistorical period and, further, that the territories of the kingdoms\nappear not to have coincided as a rule with the political divisions\nwhich we find in later times.\n\nThe scene of the Odyssey is laid chiefly in the Ionian Isles, to a much\nsmaller extent in the Peloponnesos. The wanderings of the hero himself\nappear to lie chiefly in regions to the west of Greece, though there\nmay be reminiscences of the Black Sea. Some scholars relegate them\nlargely or altogether to the realm of fairyland. Incidental references\noccur to Thesprotis (Epeiros) and the Aegean, as well as to more\ndistant lands such as Egypt.\n\nThebes was doubtless the scene of the lost Thebais and Epigonoi. The\nstory of Pelops seems to have been connected chiefly with Elis and\nthat of Perseus with Mycenae and Tiryns, while Minos belonged to Crete\nand Theseus to Athens. Iason's home was in eastern Thessaly, but his\nstory is largely taken up with journeys in the Black Sea and other\ndistant regions. Heracles' adventures are spread over the greater part\nof Greece and many other lands, though Boeotia and Malis are perhaps\nthe districts most prominent in his story. The scene of the Shield of\nHeracles is laid in Phthiotis.\n\nIt appears then that the heroic stories are distributed over the\ngreater part of the ancient Greek world. Certain districts however are\nexcepted, and to these special attention should be given. In the first\nplace we have practically no reference to Greek cities in Italy or\nSicily or to heroes belonging to them, though we do hear occasionally\nof travellers' acquaintance with these countries. More important is\nthe absence of any mention of Greek cities in Asia Minor[258] and the\nadjacent islands, except those off the coast of Caria. The legends\nwhich speak of colonies led to Lesbos by Penthilos the son of Orestes\nor to Miletos and elsewhere by the sons of Codros are hardly to be\nreckoned among heroic traditions. The names indeed, at least in the\nfirst case, are taken from this source, but they form the subject of\nno connected story. Miletos is mentioned in the Trojan catalogue (Il.\nII 868), but it is said to be in the possession of the Carians. To\nChios there is only a geographical reference (Od. III 170 ff.), and\nthough Lesbos is mentioned more frequently its inhabitants are treated\nas enemies by the Achaeans. The only real exceptions are the southern\nislands, several of which, such as Rhodes and Cos, send contingents\nto Agamemnon's army. Cyprus too seems to be fairly well known and its\nprinces, though they take no part in the expedition, are on friendly\nterms with the Achaeans--a fact which renders the absence of reference\nto the Ionic cities all the more striking. In Greece itself nearly\nevery district has a story connected with it. Attica however is one of\nthe least prominent and possesses no hero of much note except Theseus.\n\nFor the tribal distinctions which figure so prominently in later Greek\nhistory there is extremely little evidence in stories of the Heroic\nAge. The name \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 is not mentioned in the Homeric poems, while\n\u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 occurs only once, as the name of one of the five peoples of\nCrete, and \u1f38\u03ac\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 once as that of a people (perhaps the Athenians)\nassociated with the Locrians and Boeotians. On the other hand the\nmost frequently used of all national designations is \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af, a\nname which in later times was borne only by the inhabitants of two\ncomparatively unimportant districts, Phthiotis and the north coast of\nthe Peloponnesos. In the Homeric poems it appears to be a collective\nterm for the inhabitants of Greece and the surrounding islands. In the\nsame sense we find also \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03af, a name which later is used only in\narchaistic poetry. \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 seem properly to be geographical\nterms, though the former occurs frequently (the latter only once[259],\nin the form \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2) as a synonym for \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af. Names of peoples,\nsuch as \u1f0c\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03af, \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03af, are of course frequently used; but\nthey denote comparatively small sections of the nation.\n\nThough the term \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af is used for the inhabitants of Greece\ncollectively, it may of course really be the name of a tribe or people\nwhich was regarded as dominant at the time. At all events in Od. XIX\n176 we find the Achaeans mentioned as merely one of five peoples which\ninhabit Crete. As an instance of a people who were apparently never\nincluded among the Achaeans we may take the Pelasgoi mentioned in the\nsame passage. Here however we are faced with a question of nationality,\nfor Herodotus speaks of the Pelasgoi of his own time as a barbarous\npeople[260], though at the same time he holds that several Greek\npeoples, especially the Ionians and Athenians, were sprung from them.\nNo indication is given in the Homeric poems that the Pelasgoi spoke a\nforeign language; but this remark is true also of many Asiatic peoples,\nincluding the Trojans.\n\nOn the question of Greek nationality there is unfortunately very little\nevidence either in the Homeric poems or in other stories relating to\nthe Heroic Age. We cannot even tell whether the population of the\nGreek mainland was believed to be homogeneous. Only in the case of\nCrete is detailed ethnographical information given. In a passage cited\nabove we are told that this island contained five peoples, namely\nthe Achaeans, Eteocretes, Cydones, Dorians and Pelasgoi. The first\nand fourth of these are well-known sections of the Greek nation, but\nwe have no satisfactory evidence as to the nationality of the others.\nHerodotus (I 173) says that the Lycians came originally from Crete and\nadds that the whole of the island was once possessed by barbarians.\nInteresting light on the latter statement has been thrown by the recent\ndiscovery of certain inscriptions at Praisos, in what is said to have\nbeen the Eteocretan part of the island. These inscriptions are written\nin forms of the Greek alphabet which were current in the sixth and\nfourth centuries (B.C.) respectively, but the language is not Greek.\nBesides these numerous inscriptions dating from much earlier times\nhave been found at Cnossos and elsewhere; but they have not yet been\ndeciphered. All that can be said at present is that we have no reason\nfor discrediting Herodotus' statement.\n\nIn Greece itself we have not such clear evidence for the prevalence\nof a non-Greek language. Here we are dependent on somewhat doubtful\ninferences from place-names. Yet the majority of scholars would not\nadmit that the language was indigenous. Indeed the tendency at present\nis to believe that Greece and the Aegean islands were originally\ninhabited by peoples of one stock, the existence of which can be traced\nback in Crete for many thousands of years, and that these peoples were\nultimately overwhelmed and absorbed--perhaps in the course of the\nsecond millennium--by invaders from the north. Asia Minor is supposed\nto have had a somewhat similar history. Originally it is believed\nto have been occupied by various kindred peoples, of which the most\nprominent were the Hittites of Cappadocia. Eventually--about 1200\nB.C. according to the most recent view[261]--there took place a great\nirruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples from the north-west, who became\ndominant throughout the larger part of the peninsula[262].\n\nIn the Iliad the forces ranged in defence of Troy are drawn from a\nwide area, extending from the Axios (Vardar) on the west to Paphlagonia\non the east and Lycia on the south. The nationalities represented seem\nto be chiefly of Thraco-Phrygian stock, though a few, such as the\nLycians and perhaps the Carians, belong to the indigenous population.\nOn the other hand there is no reason for supposing that any of the\npeoples represented in Agamemnon's army were of other than Greek\nnationality. The story may therefore be regarded as one of national\nconflict. Yet it cannot be said that this feature is ever emphasised in\nthe poems themselves, although the point of view throughout is that of\nan Achaean.\n\nFor local or tribal patriotism the Homeric poems furnish us with little\nor no evidence. No Greek communities and few even of their princes are\ndescribed otherwise than in terms of respect. We may point also to the\nold controversy regarding Homer's birthplace--a controversy which owes\nits very existence to the absence of any local patriotism in the poems.\nIn this respect it will be seen that Greek heroic poetry agrees with\nTeutonic.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe must now return to the consideration of the chronological problem.\nIn ancient times, especially during the Alexandrian period, various\nattempts were made to calculate the exact date of the siege of Troy. Of\nthese the most generally accepted was that of Eratosthenes, which was\nbased on the length of the reigns ascribed to the kings of Sparta. This\ncalculation brought the foundation of the Dorian kingdom at Sparta to\nthe year 1104-3, and eighty years were added to obtain the date of the\nfall of Troy. But it has long been pointed out that the figures given\nfor the reigns of the early kings are so greatly above the average that\nthey cannot be regarded with any confidence. Thus the first Olympiad\n(B.C. 776-5) was made to coincide with the tenth (or eleventh) year of\nAlcamenes and Theopompos. Alcamenes was the ninth in succession from\nEurysthenes and Theopompos the eighth from Procles, and the number of\nyears ascribed to the previous reigns amounts on the average to over\nthirty-five years for one dynasty and over thirty-nine for the other.\nBut in kingdoms for which we have reliable information extending over\na long period of time the usual average length is apparently between\ntwenty and twenty-five years[263]. Hence, if the lists of kings\nthemselves are to be trusted--and even this is very doubtful in view\nof the fact that they are almost identical with the genealogies--it is\ndifficult to avoid suspecting that the total period ascribed to their\nreigns collectively is more than a century too long.\n\nMore reliance is perhaps to be placed on the genealogies of the two\nroyal families given by Herodotus (VII 204, VIII 131). Leonidas (r.\n488-480) and Leotychidas (r. 491-469), with whom we are on sure\nhistorical ground, are represented as fifteenth in descent from\nEurysthenes and Procles respectively. According to all analogies\ntherefore we should expect that the two latter flourished not very\nlong before the middle of the tenth century. In other words the date\ngiven by Eratosthenes for the 'Return of the Heracleidai' would\nseem to be from a century to a century and a half too early. A very\nreasonable explanation of the difficulty has been suggested by Prof.\nMeyer who points out that several passages in Herodotus' history seem\nto imply the reckoning of a generation at forty years[264]. Among the\nfigures given we find (II 145) Heracles dated about 1330. Cleomenes,\nhis descendant in the twentieth generation, was born about 530, or at\nall events not much later. For Eurysthenes and Procles, in the fifth\ngeneration from Heracles, this would give about 1130, which is not very\nfar from the date fixed by Eratosthenes.\n\nIt is to be remembered in the first place that the date fixed for\nEurysthenes and Procles is apparently that of their birth, and,\nsecondly, that Eratosthenes' scheme is probably only a modification\nof a previously existing system, other varieties of which are quoted\nby Prof. Meyer[265]. Indeed it would not require any great exercise\nof ingenuity to point out traces of a more or less symmetrical\ndistribution of the period covered by the reigns of the early Spartan\nkings[266]. But, apart from any such speculations, we can hardly\ndoubt, in the light of Prof. Meyer's showing, that the date for\nEurysthenes and Procles is derived ultimately from a calculation based\non the genealogies rather than from any contemporary written record\nor tradition. The genealogies themselves of course may represent\ntradition, so far as they are not interpolated[267], but they point,\nas we have seen, to a much later date than that which we have been\ndiscussing[268]. If we substitute 32 \u00d7 15 for 40 \u00d7 15, starting from\nthe birth of Cleomenes, we are brought to about the year 1000. That\nmust be regarded as the date really indicated by Spartan tradition for\nthe birth of Eurysthenes and Procles.\n\nWe may now turn for a moment to the genealogies of the other Heraclid\nfamilies, namely those of Argos, Messenia and Corinth. The first\nof these places Pheidon in the sixth generation, according to one\nversion, in the ninth according to another, from Temenos, the uncle\nof Eurysthenes and Procles. Unfortunately different dates are assigned\nfor Pheidon. The earliest, which is not generally accepted, places\nhis reign about the middle of the eighth century. But even this,\ntaking the longer form of the genealogy, does not carry us appreciably\nfarther back than the Agiad list. The Corinthian genealogy places the\nlast king, who is said to have been killed in 747, in the thirteenth\ngeneration from Heracles. This would agree with the longer form of the\nArgive genealogy; several of the names however are generally regarded\nas suspicious. The Messenian genealogy is materially shorter.\n\nApart from these Dorian genealogies there are some notices relating\nto the ancestry of persons belonging to other parts of Greece, which\nmust not be ignored. Herodotus (II 143) states that Hecataeus, who\nwas a prominent man at the beginning of the fifth century, claimed to\nbe descended in the sixteenth (i.e. fifteenth) generation from a god.\nThis probably takes us back to the Heroic Age, when divine parentage\nis common, whereas later it appears to be almost, if not entirely,\nunknown[269]. Again, it is believed that the genealogy of the Philaidai\nat Athens, which actually survives, though only in a corrupt form[270],\nplaced Philaios, the son of Aias, in the twelfth generation above\nHippocleides, who was archon in 566. Further, according to Pausanias (I\n11), Tharypas, king of the Molossoi, who was born soon after the middle\nof the fifth century, claimed to be descended in the fifteenth or\nsixteenth generation from Pyrrhos the son of Achilles. It will be seen\nthat, though these genealogies do not agree exactly, the discrepancy is\nnot very great. They seem to indicate the existence of a belief that\npersons who flourished in the first half of the fifth century were\nremoved by about fifteen generations from the Heroic Age.\n\nOn the other hand Pindar (_Pyth._ IV 9 ff.) in an ode written in 466\nand addressed to Arcesilaos IV, king of Cyrene, places that king's\nseventh ancestor, Battos I, in the sixteenth generation from Euphemos\nthe Argonaut, a contemporary of Heracles. This exceeds even the Agiad\nreckoning, for Pleistarchos, the representative of that family reigning\nin 466, was only in the twenty-first generation from Heracles. From the\nother non-Heraclid genealogies we should have expected that the number\nof generations to Arcesilaos would be about what is recorded for Battos\nI[271].\n\nWhatever may be the explanation of this case, it will be seen that\nthe other non-Heraclid genealogies are shorter than that of the\nAgidai by at least three generations--if we equate Philaios, Pyrrhos\n(Neoptolemos) and the grandson of Hecataeus' god with Aristomachos\nthe grandfather of Eurysthenes. The dates which they indicate for the\n'floruit' of these persons are in no case earlier than the middle of\nthe tenth century. As to the relative value of the two traditions we\nhave nothing to guide us, and the same remark applies to the Greek\ngenealogical evidence in general. Two points however must be insisted\nupon: (i) that the calculations of scholars of the Alexandrian age, or\neven earlier times, are not to be interpreted as evidence of tradition;\n(ii) that the evidence of tradition, whatever be its value, brings\nthe end of the Heroic Age at least towards the close of the eleventh\ncentury.\n\n * * * * *\n\nApart from the evidence discussed above, unsatisfactory as it doubtless\nis, chronological data for the Heroic Age itself seem to be entirely\nwanting. We know however that a highly advanced civilisation flourished\nin the Aegean in early times, and that it was succeeded by a long\nperiod in which both art and general culture were at a very low ebb.\nThis latter period, which is commonly known as 'geometrical' from the\ntype of art which prevailed in it, lasted, so far as one can judge,\nuntil about the end of the eighth century, at which time oriental\ninfluence began to make its appearance. The 'orientalising' period\nagain continued down to the beginning of the classical age. It is a\ncommon and natural hypothesis to equate the low-watermark of culture\nearly in the geometrical period with the generations immediately\nfollowing the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesos. But unfortunately\nwe cannot thereby obtain any certain date for the latter, since Greece\nappears to have had little contact with the outside world during the\ngeometrical period.\n\nIn recent years some advance has been made through the operations\ncarried out by the British School at Sparta, which is perhaps the most\nimportant site for our purpose. From the stratification of the deposits\nMr Dawkins, the director, has come to the conclusion that the earliest\ntemple and altar at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia date from the ninth\nor even the tenth century[272]. The temple, which must have been one\nof the earliest known, appears to have been a narrow and unpretentious\nstructure of crude brick and timber. Some geometrical sherds were found\nbeneath the floor, a fact which shows that the sanctuary had been in\nuse somewhat earlier. If the sanctuary was founded at the beginning of\nthe Dorian settlement at Sparta it is obvious that this result agrees\nwell enough with the date indicated for the conquest by tradition. No\nrelics of pre-geometrical times appear to have been found.\n\nWhen we turn back to the times of the earlier civilisation it is\nmuch easier to establish chronological equations; for the presence\nof Egyptian objects among Aegean remains and of Aegean objects or\nrepresentations of Aegean objects in Egypt shows that there was\nfrequent communication between the two areas. Thus there is little\ndoubt that certain Cretan remains date from periods contemporaneous\nwith the twelfth and Hyksos dynasties. Others again clearly belong\nto the period of the eighteenth dynasty--at all events the earlier\npart of it. As to the date of the destruction of the Cretan palaces\nopinions still differ considerably; the most recent statement by Dr\nEvans is in favour of about 1350[273]. But this catastrophe did not\nbring the Aegean civilisation to an end. We find inscriptions dating\nfrom the subsequent period (Late Minoan III) apparently quite similar\nto those discovered in the earlier stratum, and the various artistic\ntypes, though decadent, show no breach of continuity. Indeed 'Mycenean'\ninfluence seems to have been more widespread (e.g. in Thessaly and\nItaly) at this time than in any earlier period. In Egypt vases of the\nsame type are depicted in the wall-paintings on the tomb of Rameses\nIII, who died about 1170. After this time however traces of Mycenean\ninfluence are rarely found in that country.\n\nWithin the last few years it has come to be noticed that the deposits\ndating from the last Mycenean period fall into two well-marked groups.\nThe remarks made above, as to the art of Late Minoan III being a\ncontinuation of that of the preceding period, apply properly only to\nthe first of these groups--represented by the cemeteries of Zafer\nPapoura (Cnossos) and Phaistos, the late Mycenean megaron at Hagia\nTriada (also in Crete) and the late palace at Phylakopi in Melos.\nOther deposits, represented by the tombs found at Mouliana, Milatos,\nKavousi and Erganos (all in Crete), though they have certain features\nin common with the former group, yet at the same time show a number of\ncharacteristics which are entirely new. Of these the most important are\nthe practice of cremation and the use of fibulae and iron weapons, all\nof which are unknown in the Aegean before this time. From a careful\nstudy of the pottery found in these deposits Dr D. Mackenzie[274] has\ncome to the conclusion that it belongs to the same period as the famous\n'Warrior Vase' from Mycenae. This again is obviously contemporary with\na painted stele, likewise representing warriors, which was found in\none of the latest graves in the lower town at the same place. Fibulae\nalso were found here in the same group of graves. The importance of\nthese observations lies in the fact that the armature of the warriors\ndepicted on the vase and the stele corresponds in all essentials to\nwhat is described in the Homeric poems. This had already been pointed\nout by Prof. Ridgeway[275]; but many scholars have attributed both\nobjects to a much later period. Now however in view of the sequence\nwhich Dr Mackenzie has succeeded in tracing, in Cretan pottery and\nother articles, from the time of the destruction of the palaces\nonwards, it appears that the latter view can hardly be maintained.\nLastly, Dr Mackenzie has pointed out that all the above deposits\ndiffer radically from those of the strict geometrical period found\nin cemeteries at Cnossos and Courtes and in the 'beehive' tomb near\nKavousi (all in Crete). There are clear indications that all the latter\nbelong to a subsequent time.\n\nAs a result of his investigations then Dr Mackenzie has come to the\nconclusion that three well-marked periods can be distinguished in\nCretan history, after the destruction of the palaces. But further, he\nbelieves that each of these periods coincides with a new settlement in\nthe island--the true geometrical period with the Dorian settlement, the\n'sub-Mycenean' with that of the Achaeans, and the last true Mycenean\nperiod (Late Minoan III) with a settlement of Pelasgoi. The evidence of\nthe deposits found at Sparta and elsewhere tends distinctly to favour\nthe first of these identifications. For, though geometrical art was\nby no means confined to the Dorians, it may be presumed that their\nsettlement was the latest of those which took place in Crete. Some\nscholars hold that they came there from the Peloponnesos, while others\nplace their settlement in the island prior to the invasion of the\npeninsula--and ancient authority can be obtained for both views. But in\neither case it is improbable that the two events were separated by a\nlong interval. Again, the identification of the second or sub-Mycenean\nperiod with that of Achaean settlement is rendered extremely probable\nby the resemblance which deposits of this period show to objects and\ncustoms described in the Homeric poems, e.g. in regard to armature and\nthe use of fibulae and cremation. In the poems the Achaeans are clearly\nrepresented as dominant even in Crete, while in Greece itself, as we\nhave seen, the existence of other nationalities is practically ignored.\n\nIn regard to the earliest of the three settlements Dr Mackenzie's\ntheory may be open to more serious question. The ethnical affinities\nof the Pelasgoi are still quite obscure. Again, although new types,\napparently derived from the mainland, do occur at this time, the break\nof continuity with the preceding age does not seem to be anything like\nso marked as in the subsequent periods. It is scarcely impossible that\nthe destruction of the palaces may be due to naval warfare or piracy\non a large scale, or even to commotions within the island itself. For\nour purpose however this part of Dr Mackenzie's theory is of minor\nimportance[276].\n\nIn other respects at all events the theory seems to provide a very\nsatisfactory explanation of the phenomena. We have seen that the\nSpartan evidence, whether traditional or archaeological, affords no\njustification for dating the Dorian invasion very long before--or\nafter--1000 B.C. Now we find very good evidence for two distinct\nperiods of culture between that event and the destruction of the Cretan\npalaces, which took place probably in the fourteenth century. The\nlater of these periods is the one with which we are chiefly concerned;\nfor Greek tradition universally places the Heroic Age in times\nimmediately preceding the Dorian invasion. It is therefore a fact of\ngreat significance that the deposits of this age agree in so striking\na manner with the evidence of the Homeric poems. As to the relative\nduration of the two periods (Late Minoan III and sub-Mycenean or\nAchaean) archaeologists apparently have not as yet ventured to express\nan opinion. But it may be observed that the poems themselves give no\nindication that the Achaean dominion was believed to be of recent\ngrowth. The Cretan king Idomeneus is one of the oldest leaders at Troy,\nand his grandfather is said to have reigned at Cnossos before him. The\nevidence of the poems then favours the idea that even in Crete Achaean\ndominion lasted at least a century.\n\nThis brings us back nearly to times when, fortunately, historical\nevidence is available once more, namely from the Egyptian monuments.\nDuring the thirteenth and twelfth centuries Egypt was threatened\non several occasions by formidable armies. During the reign of\nMerenptah, probably about 1220, it was attacked by a host of Libyans\nand \"foreign soldiers of the Libyans\" whom \"the miserable Libyan had\nled hither[277].\" The names given to the confederates are Akaiuasha,\nThuirsha (Turusha), Shakalesha (Shakarusha) and Shardina. Very early\nin the next century, during the reign of Rameses III, a fresh attack\nwas made from the same quarter. A few years later Rameses encountered\nboth by land and sea a great host coming from the north. \"The Isles\nwere restless, disturbed among themselves at one and the same time. No\nland stood before them, beginning from Kheta (Cappadocia and Cilicia),\nKedi (the 'circling' of the Syrian coast at the Gulf of Iskanderun),\nCarchemish, Arvad and Alashiya. They destroyed them, and assembled\nin their camp in the midst of Amar (_Amurru_; Palestine)[278].\" The\ninvaders here are called Shardina, Pulesatha (or Purusatha), Vashasha,\nTchakaray (Zakar) and Danaau (or Danauna)[279]. Other Shardina appear\nto have been fighting on the side of the Egyptians. About a century\nearlier the Hittites brought a great confederacy against Rameses II.\nAmong the names given here are Luka, Pidasa, Kalakisha, Dardenui and\nMasa[280]. On this occasion also we find Shardina in the Egyptian army.\nIn the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, which date from shortly before the\nmiddle of the fourteenth century, we hear of Sirdana (apparently the\nsame people) serving under the Egyptians in Palestine, and of attacks\nmade upon the coast by Lukki, who are believed to be identical with the\nLuka[281].\n\nUnfortunately scholars have not yet been able to come to any general\nagreement as to the identification of most of these names. It is\ncommonly held that Pulesatha and Luka denote the Philistines and\nLycians respectively. Many writers also identify the Shardina with\nthe Sardinians and the Shakalesha with the Siceloi, but others\nconnect these names with Sardis and Sagalassos in Asia Minor. Other\nidentifications which have received more or less assent are those of\nAkaiuasha, Thuirsha, Danaau, Dardenui and Masa with the Achaeans,\nTyrrhenians, Danaoi, Dardanoi and Mysians, and of Vashasha and Pidasa\nwith the inhabitants of Oaxos (in Crete) and Pedasos (in Caria)\nrespectively. It has been supposed also that the Tchakaray, who are\nmentioned occasionally as mariners in later times, likewise belonged to\nCrete.\n\nIn spite of the large element of doubt attaching to most of these\nidentifications one important conclusion may be drawn with safety,\nnamely that several of the nations mentioned had come from a\nconsiderable distance. Even those scholars who deny the references\nto Sicily and Sardinia hold that nearly all parts of the Aegean are\nrepresented in the lists. The inscriptions frequently speak of the\ninvaders as coming from the sea or from islands. Thus the Pulesatha are\nsaid to be \"in the midst of the sea.\" Again the king \"slaughtered the\nDanauna in their isles[282].\" We find also the expressions \"Vashasha\nof the sea,\" \"Shardina of the sea,\" \"Thuirsha of the sea[283].\" Such\nterms are said to be often used loosely; but under the eighteenth\nand nineteenth dynasties the territories of the Hittite kingdom in\nSyria and Cappadocia had become so well known to the Egyptians that\nit is incredible that any of the peoples of that region can be meant.\nThe appearance too and the armature of the Shardina, as portrayed\non the monuments, are quite incompatible with the supposition that\nthey belonged to any of the countries round the south-east of the\nMediterranean.\n\nWe have seen that the northern invasion repelled by Rameses III was\npreceded by 'disturbances in the isles,' while the lands of the\nHittites and their neighbours had apparently been overrun by the\ninvaders before the attack upon Egypt. Now it has been noted that the\ngreat Hittite kingdom (in Cappadocia) appears to have been destroyed\nabout the same time. In explanation of this the theory has recently\nbeen put forward[284] that the invasion repelled by Rameses III was\nclosely connected with that irruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples into\nAsia Minor to which we have already referred (p. 178). It will be seen\nthat this theory has an important bearing on the Homeric question;\nfor in the Iliad we find the Thraco-Phrygian peoples already fully\nestablished in Asia Minor, and no hint is given that their settlement\nthere was believed to be in any sense recent.\n\nBut it is by no means impossible that the 'disturbances in the isles'\nmay refer to a displacement of population in a different quarter--which\nmay or may not be connected with the Phrygian settlement in Asia Minor.\nThe movement against Egypt was, in part at least, a maritime one, and\nwhen Rameses is said to have slaughtered the invaders in their islands\nthe reference can hardly be to the old Hittite kingdom, which had long\nbeen known to the Egyptians. Surely it is more natural to connect the\n'disturbances' with those national movements in the southern Aegean\nwhich eventually brought the Mycenean civilisation to an end. We have\nseen that the last period of this civilisation is believed to have\nbegun in the fourteenth century and to have lasted some considerable\ntime. The convulsions of Rameses' time (the early years of the twelfth\ncentury) may therefore mark a stage in the movements which brought\nabout its destruction.\n\nIn any case it is from the Egyptian monuments of this period that we\nobtain the clearest evidence for contact between the true Mycenean\ncivilisation and that 'sub-Mycenean' or 'Achaean' type which followed\nit. The warriors of the invading forces[285] are represented as armed\nwith swords of the regular Mycenean pattern or with spears of no\nvery great length. Some of them--the Pulesatha and Tchakaray--wear a\npeculiar head-dress, apparently made of feathers[286], which recalls\nthe type used in later times by the Lycians according to Herodotus (VII\n92). On the other hand the Shardina are depicted with very elaborate\nhelmets[287], which, except that they have no plumes, are almost\nidentical with those borne by the figures on the Warrior Vase (cf. p.\n185). The Shardina and many of the Pulesatha also carry round shields,\nheld in one hand, as in the case of the warriors represented on the\nVase[288] and the Stele. This fact is especially noteworthy, since\nthe round shield seems to have been totally foreign not only to the\nEgyptians themselves, but also to the Hittites and all neighbouring\npeoples[289], while even in the Aegean area it was apparently not used\nin centres of Mycenean civilisation[290]. On the other hand both these\nfeatures correspond to the type of armature described in the Homeric\npoems. It would not be correct of course to say that the portraits of\nthe Shardina might be taken as faithful representations of Homeric\nwarriors. We find no trace of greaves, while the body-armour is of\na less elaborate type than that described in the poems[291]. The\nHomeric type of armature--represented by the Warrior Vase as well as\nin the poems--belongs clearly to a later stage of development than\nthe Shardina type, and therefore probably to a later age than the\nearly part of the twelfth century. Yet there is sufficient resemblance\nbetween the two to render it more than likely that the one is descended\nfrom the other.\n\nWhatever may have been the causes which brought about the movement\nencountered by Rameses III, some of the other references point\ndistinctly to bands of mercenary soldiers, rather than to national\nmigrations. This is especially clear in the case of the Shardina,\nwho are mentioned for the first time as serving under the Egyptians\nin Palestine. But the earliest reference--in the Tell-el-Amarna\nletters--carries us back to the destruction of the Cretan palaces, if\nDr Evans' date for this catastrophe is correct. It has been remarked\nthat, in striking contrast with Mycenae and other early centres of\ncivilisation in Greece, the Cretan palaces were almost entirely\nunfortified; and the explanation commonly given of this fact is that\ntheir owners ruled the seas. If this is true we must conclude that the\nearliest maritime expeditions of the Shardina and their confederates\ndid not take place without their consent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this discussion we have seen that, though historical\nevidence for the Greek Heroic Age is entirely wanting, later tradition\npoints to the eleventh century as the time to which the poems and\nlegends refer; and further, that, unsatisfactory as it doubtless is,\nthis evidence is corroborated to a considerable extent by the results\nof archaeological investigation. In much earlier times various parts\nof the Greek world possessed a high civilisation, which has left\nremains of magnificent palaces and many elaborate works of art. The\nevidence of these remains does not correspond at all to the state of\nsociety revealed in the poems. But at the close of this earlier period\nmany new objects--belonging, it would seem, to a new population--make\ntheir appearance; and these latter do fulfil the conditions required.\nLastly, it is of interest to note that from the fourteenth to the\ntwelfth century Egypt and the Levant were frequently visited by bands\nof soldiers, who seem to have come from the Aegean or neighbouring\nregions and who outwardly bear a somewhat striking resemblance to the\nwarriors described in the poems. It would appear that at this time the\nEast must have been more familiar to the Greek world than Greek records\nwould lead us to expect. This is the more noteworthy since during the\nfollowing centuries the Greeks seem to have had but little contact with\nforeign nations.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[250] Chiefly because the description of the shield (vv. 139-320)\nappears to correspond to the art of that period.\n\n[251] The \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 embraced much more than the story of Troy; cf. _W. v.\nChrists Geschichte d. griech. Litteratur_\u2075, \u00a7 47 f. The relationship of\nthese works to the poems may be compared with that of V\u00f6lsunga Saga to\nthe heroic poems of the Edda.\n\n[252] Schol. to Euripides, _Troades_, 822.\n\n[253] Eusebius, _Chron._, ad Olymp. 53. The same authority however also\nattributes it to Cinaithon of Lacedaemon (ad Olymp. 4).\n\n[254] Fragm. 6 (Bergk), from Pausanias, IX 9. 5.\n\n[255] The Suppliants is hardly to be reckoned as a heroic play. It\nis referred to a time many generations before the siege of Troy and\nall the characters appear to be personifications of nationalities.\nRegarding the epic Danais little information seems to be obtainable.\n\n[256] The Ion and Bacchai are perhaps rather to be regarded as\npre-heroic; the former deals with a story which apparently belongs to\nthe same type as Aeschylus' Suppliants.\n\n[257]\n\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd,\n \u03b1\u1f56\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4' \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u1fc3\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f33 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4' \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd.\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u1f74\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03c6' \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u1ff3 \u0398\u03ae\u03b2\u1fc3, \u039a\u03b1\u03b4\u03bc\u03b7\u0390\u03b4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u1fc3,\n \u1f64\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba' \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf,\n \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bd\u03ae\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba' \u1f20\u03cb\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nIn this passage the word \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 seems to have already begun to acquire\nits later meaning, viz. a distinguished man of the past (generally of\nthe Heroic Age) who was honoured with worship, though not as a god. For\nsuch worship Teutonic records naturally furnish few parallels, since\nmost of the Teutonic peoples became Christian either during the Heroic\nAge itself or soon after. We may compare however what Jordanes (cap.\n13) says of the Goths: _proceres suos, quorum quasi fortuna uincebant,\nnon puros homines sed semideos, id est Ansis, uocauerunt_. In Old Norse\nthe name _\u00e6sir_ (*_ans\u012bz_) is applied only to the gods (Othin, Thor,\netc.); but we do hear occasionally of worship paid to heroes of the\nHeroic Age, as well as to distinguished persons of later times. An\ninstance of the former (in the case of Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki) occurs in Yngl. S.\n41.\n\n[258] In the Nostoi after the departure from Troy some of the Achaeans\n(Calchas, Leonteus and Polypoites) were made to arrive at Colophon.\nThe story of Calchas' contest with Mopsos perhaps comes from the same\nsource.\n\n[259] Once also, together with \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af (Il. II 684), as a name for the\nsubjects of Achilles, or rather Peleus. \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2 is used sometimes for a\nplace or district in Peleus' kingdom, sometimes apparently in a wider\nsense.\n\n[260] He states (I 57) that in his time they inhabited Placia and\nScylace, on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara, and \u039a\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd,\nprobably in the Chalcidian peninsula (though some scholars emend this\nname to \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1, i.e. Cortona in Tuscany). Down to the fifth century\nthey are said to have also occupied Lemnos and Imbros (IV 145, V 26,\nVI 138 ff.), and in early times Samothrace (II 51), while their name\nwas preserved at Antandros, in the Gulf of Adramyttion (VII 42). Later\nwriters speak of the Pelasgoi as having formerly inhabited many other\nregions. Into the difficult problems connected with this name we need\nnot enter here; for the most recent and perhaps fullest discussion of\nthe subject reference may be made to Prof. Myres' paper in the _Journ.\nHell. St._ 1907, p. 170 ff. As regards the etymology analogies indicate\nthat \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u03af represents an earlier form *_Pelag-skoi_. If this is a\nGreek word the most probable meaning is 'people of the sea' (though\nanother explanation has been proposed; cf. Kretschmer, _Glotta_ I 16\nf.). But it may really be a national name (cf. \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2). In that case\nwe may note that the use of the suffix _-sko-_ in national names is\nIndo-European, though not Greek.\n\n[261] Meyer, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1908, p. 18.\n\n[262] Into the linguistic affinities of these various peoples we need\nnot enter here. It will be sufficient to notice that the Thracian\nand Phrygian languages are commonly believed to have belonged to the\neastern division of the Indo-European group. Certainly this is the\ncase with the language of the Armenians, who according to Herodotus\n(VII 73) were an offshoot (\u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9) of the Phrygians. The evidence\nof the Phrygian inscriptions themselves is unfortunately somewhat\nambiguous. To the same eastern division belonged the ancient Illyrian\nlanguages, if the present dialects of Albania are descended from them.\nOn the other hand the languages of the indigenous peoples throughout\nAsia Minor and the Aegean area are commonly believed to have been\nnon-Indo-European. Yet Prof. Conway (_British School at Athens_, Ann.\nVIII, p. 141 ff.) holds that the inscriptions of Praisos belonged to a\nlanguage of this group. If this should turn out to be the case with the\nearlier Cretan inscriptions current views as to the early history of\nthe Indo-European languages would require considerable modification.\n\n[263] For England from its unification under Alfred the Great to the\npresent time the average is about twenty years; for France from 840 to\n1793 it is between twenty-three and twenty-four years.\n\n[264] _Forsch. z. alten Geschichte_, p. 170 f. The reckoning is not\ndue to Herodotus himself but taken over by him from an earlier writer.\nProf. Meyer suggests as its author Hecataeus, who was a contemporary of\nCleomenes.\n\n[265] _Op. cit._ p. 178 ff.\n\n[266] Eratosthenes reckons nearly 320 years from the accession\n(birth) of Eurysthenes to that of Alcamenes in the ninth generation,\nwhile the reigns of the father, grandfather, great-grandfather and\ngreat-great-grandfather of the latter make up 159 years. Sosibius,\nwho reckoned by the Eurypontid dynasty, appears to have had a similar\nperiod of 320 years from Procles to Theopompos, although his dates\nwere different from those of Eratosthenes--1091/0 to 771/0 according\nto Prof. Meyer (_op. cit._ p. 179 f.). The accession of Theopompos was\nequated with that of Alcamenes by Eratosthenes. Possibly these periods\nwere originally subdivisions of a longer period of 640 years, reckoned\nfrom the fortieth year of Cleomenes (or Leonidas?).\n\n[267] Two names (Prytanis and Eunomos) in the Eurypontid list are\ngenerally regarded with doubt, but none of the Agiad names is really\nof a suspicious character. The fact that Agis and Eurypon are not the\nfirst names in the genealogies ought not to be used as an argument\nagainst the trustworthiness of the tradition. In many Teutonic\ngenealogies--e.g. the Gothic, Frankish (Merovingian), Kentish, East\nAnglian and Mercian--the name which performs patronymic function is not\nthat which stands first in the list.\n\n[268] Prof. Meyer's view is not that the chronologists fixed too\nearly a date for the Dorian invasion, but that the early parts of the\ngenealogies themselves are unhistorical.\n\n[269] Prof. Meyer (_op. cit._ p. 173 and note) cites the case of\nTelamon the son of Poseidon, ancestor of the priests of Poseidon at\nHalicarnassos, whom he places after the Return of the Heracleidai. But\nthe question is a complicated one. The genealogy cannot be used for our\npurpose, as we do not know where it ends.\n\n[270] Cf. T\u00f6pffer, _Attische Genealogie_, p. 278 f.; Meyer, _op. cit._\np. 174, note.\n\n[271] Battos I is believed to have founded Cyrene about 630. It may be\nobserved that the interval between that date and 466 is surprisingly\nshort for the lapse of seven generations.\n\n[272] _British School at Athens_, Ann. XIV, pp. 3, 18 f.\n\n[273] Cf. Hawes, _Crete the Fore-runner of Greece_, p. 18. A much later\ndate is favoured by Dr D\u00f6rpfeld (_Ath. Mitteilungen_, XXXII 602),\nwhose views on Cretan chronology differ greatly from those of English\narchaeologists. To this question we shall have to refer again in a\nlater chapter.\n\n[274] _British School at Athens_, Ann. XIII, p. 423 ff.\n\n[275] _Early Age of Greece_, p. 317. Representations of both the Vase\nand the Stele are given in the same work (p. 313 f.).\n\n[276] Dr Mackenzie's theory would certainly gain in probability if it\ncould be shown that the Pelasgoi were identical with the Pulesatha\nor Philistines (cf. p. 188). The arguments in favour of such an\nidentification are obvious enough; but they are scarcely of such a\nnature as to carry conviction. The appearance of _-st-_ for _-gsk-_ in\nthe name is perhaps hardly to be regarded as an insuperable difficulty;\nfor we know nothing of the languages involved or of the sound-changes\nto which they were subject.\n\n[277] Cf. Hall, _The Oldest Civilization of Greece_, p. 180 f.; _Ann.\nof the Brit. School at Athens_, VIII, p. 180; Petrie, _History of\nEgypt_, p. 108 ff.\n\n[278] Hall, _Ann. of the Brit. School_, VIII 183; cf. also Breasted,\n_Ancient Records of Egypt_, IV, p. 37 f.\n\n[279] Prof. Breasted (_l.c._) gives these names as _Peleset_, _Thekel_\n(i.e. Zakar), _Shekelesh_ (omitted above), _Denyen_ and _Weshesh_.\n\n[280] Cf. Hall, _op. cit._ p. 177 f.\n\n[281] Cf. Breasted, _History of Egypt_, pp. 336, 386; Hall, _op. cit._\np. 176 f.\n\n[282] Cf. W. M. M\u00fcller, _Asien und Europa_, pp. 361, 363; Petrie,\n_History of Egypt_, III, p. 150.\n\n[283] Cf. W. M. M\u00fcller, _op. cit._ pp. 361, 371; Petrie, _op. cit._ pp.\n151, 162.\n\n[284] Cf. Meyer, _S.-B. der Akad. zu Berlin_, 1908, p. 18 f.\n\n[285] A considerable number of the figures are reproduced in W. M.\nM\u00fcller's _Asien und Europa_ (cap. 27, 28); many also in the Histories\nof Egypt by Meyer and Petrie.\n\n[286] This head-dress is figured on a discus recently found at Phaistos\n(Crete) among deposits dating from 'Middle Minoan III' (cent. XVII?).\nThe discus, if not actually of Cretan origin, is said to come clearly\nfrom some district under the influence of Cretan civilisation. Cf.\nMeyer, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1910, p. 1022 ff.\n\n[287] They are said to be white; but it is difficult to believe that\nthey are not metal--possibly bronze overlaid with tin (cf. Il. XXIII\n560 ff.).\n\n[288] The shields figured on the Vase (apparently also those on the\nStele) seem to have a section cut out of them; but they can hardly be\nregarded otherwise than as round shields. Cf. Lippold, _M\u00fcnchener Arch.\nStudien_, p. 406.\n\n[289] Except the Assyrians (cf. p. 203, note); but there the evidence\ncomes from much later times.\n\n[290] It occurs probably on the discus from Phaistos (cf. Meyer _l.c._)\nand on a porcelain fragment from the third shaft-grave at Mycenae (cf.\nReichel, _\u00fcber hom. Waffen_, p. 58)--both times in conjunction with\nhead-dresses of the Pulesatha or Shardina types--as well as on ivory\nobjects from Enkomi in Cyprus (cf. Evans, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, XXX\n209), here also in conjunction with similar armature, though only the\nlower part of the helmet is visible.\n\n[291] Many of the figures, both Shardina and Pulesatha, wear\nbody-armour of some kind. Greaves are first found at Enkomi.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n\nIt has been mentioned that, according to the theory now most commonly\naccepted, the Homeric poems were not the work of one author or even\nof one generation--that on the contrary they grew up gradually in the\ncourse of several hundred years, reaching their final form (in the case\nof the Odyssey) perhaps not before the middle of the seventh century.\nWe must now review briefly the evidence on which this theory is based.\n\nThe earliest historical references to the poems reach back only to\nthe beginning of the sixth century, and even these are not altogether\nsatisfactory. Cleisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon, according to Herodotus (V\n67) prohibited rhapsodists from reciting the Homeric poems, because\nthey were full of the praises of Argos and its people. But the\nreference here is perhaps rather to the Thebais or Epigonoi than the\nIliad. Again, it is said that when Athens and Megara were disputing\nabout the possession of Salamis, both parties appealed to the authority\nof Homer in support of their contentions. If this story may be trusted\nit is of importance as showing that the poems were generally venerated\nat such an early date. And though all the evidence is late[292], the\nform in which the passage in question (Il. II 557 f.) has survived does\nclearly suggest Athenian influence.\n\nReferences in the works of other poets carry us back to a considerably\nearlier period. It has already been mentioned that Callinos is said\nto have attributed the Thebais to Homer, from which we may infer\nthat poems under this name were already known. Archilochos, who\nlikewise flourished before the middle of the seventh century, seems\nto have attributed the Margites to Homer[293]. The extant fragments\nof his works also contain several passages which apparently show\nHomeric influence[294]. Terpandros, probably an older contemporary\nof Archilochos, is said to have invented a musical accompaniment\nfor the Homeric poems[295]. In Hesiodic poetry we find a number of\nreferences to heroic subjects. The Catalogue appears to have dealt with\ncertain adventures of Odysseus, which were probably derived from the\nOdyssey[296].\n\nThis evidence, vague and somewhat uncertain as it is, renders it\nprobable that Homeric poetry was in existence before the seventh\ncentury. Further than this we cannot hope for any direct external\nevidence, for the authors cited are the earliest of whom we know\nanything worth mention. Indeed the age of the various Hesiodic poems\nthemselves is very problematical. It is customary now to attribute the\nTheogony and the Works and Days to the close of the eighth century and\nthe other poems to the seventh. But Herodotus (II 53) referred Hesiod,\nas well as Homer, to a period about 400 years before his own time, i.e.\nto about the middle of the ninth century.\n\nTurning now to the internal evidence, we may at all events regard one\nfact as established, namely that the subject-matter was determined at a\nperiod considerably anterior to those of which we have been speaking.\nIt is not merely that the persons mentioned are uniformly referred to\nthe Heroic Age, for we have yet to discuss the possibility that all the\ncharacters of this age are fictitious. But we have also to take into\naccount the ethnographical indications contained in the poems. There\nis no hint of the presence of Dorians in the Peloponnesos, nor of the\nexistence of Ionic states in Asia Minor or even in the Cyclades[297];\nindeed the scheme of tribal or political geography which they present\nis far removed from anything we find even in the earliest records of\nthe historical period. We shall see later that the same remark holds\ngood with regard to the system of government depicted in the poems,\ne.g. in the universal prevalence of kingship, and so also with their\nindications as to social organisation, religion and even ethical\nstandards. Then there is the fact that in references to weapons bronze\nis far more frequently mentioned than iron; yet it is generally agreed\nthat iron must have been in common use by the tenth century, while\nsome scholars would refer its introduction to a much earlier date.\nLastly, we may take note of certain passages and expressions which\nseem to contain reminiscences of the prehistoric civilisation of the\nAegean--a civilisation which, as we have seen, had passed its zenith\nin the fourteenth century and which was probably altogether submerged\nin the convulsions which accompanied the Dorian and Ionic migrations.\nAmong such reminiscences we may probably count the descriptions of the\npalaces of Menelaos and Alcinoos and the use of such terms as \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\nOf course it is not to be supposed that any part of the poems goes\nback to the period of the early civilisation. Yet the features noted\nabove seem to me to point quite clearly to a time when some of the\nancient palaces were still known and perhaps still inhabited. Hence it\nis not merely the case that the poems are concerned exclusively with\ncharacters of the Heroic Age. We are bound to conclude further that the\nenvironment in which these characters are placed is in general such as\nbelonged to the same period. This of course involves the existence of\na verbal tradition practically from the Heroic Age itself. Indeed, we\nmay say that it probably involves a poetic tradition, for we have no\nevidence for the existence of traditional prose narratives, whereas\nreferences to the cultivation of poetry in early times are fairly\nnumerous.\n\nNow it is generally agreed that the Heroic Age--or perhaps we should\nsay the type of civilisation and the ethnographical conditions with\nwhich this age is associated--cannot have lasted much beyond the close\nof the eleventh century. Hence the date accepted by many scholars for\nthe completion of the Odyssey (cf. p. 169) involves a period of more\nthan three centuries, during which the Homeric poems were in process\nof formation. That is a long period for continued composition in one\nsubject, and it will be well now to review briefly the evidence on\nwhich this theory rests.\n\nKirchhoff[298] dated the 'later redaction' of the Odyssey between Ol.\n30 and Ol. 50, or at all events not much before Ol. 30 (B.C. 656). To\nthis conclusion he was led primarily by the reference to the voyage of\nthe Argo in XII 59-72. It is probable enough that this passage implies\nacquaintance with a poem dealing with Iason's adventures; but the same\ncan hardly be said of Kirchhoff's further suggestion, viz. that this\nlost poem must have been composed some considerable time after the\ncolonisation of Cyzicos[299]. The accounts which we have of the travels\nand adventures of the Argonauts can scarcely be said to indicate\nthat the earliest poems on this subject were composed at a time when\nthe Black Sea was already familiar to the Greeks; on the other hand\ntravellers from time to time may have penetrated into that region\ncenturies before the foundation of Cyzicos[300].\n\nOthers have sought to show that the later parts of the poem betray an\nintimate acquaintance with the western seas, such as would be possible\nonly after the development of Corinthian maritime enterprise about the\nclose of the eighth century, whereas the knowledge of the same regions\nshown by the earlier parts is of the vaguest description[301]. Here the\nevidence is derived chiefly from the references to Sicily (\u03a3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b7)\nand the Siceloi, Alybas (traditionally placed in the Gulf of Otranto,\nbut perhaps rather a coined name) and Temesa, which is identified with\nTempsa in Calabria. This theory seems to me to be open to much the same\nobjections as the other. It is clear now that in prehistoric times the\nsouth of Italy was intimately connected with the eastern coast of the\nAdriatic, and we have no ground for denying that the former may have\nbeen known to Greek traders or pirates long before the date of the\nearliest colonies.\n\nA third argument, and one which has exercised a much wider influence,\nis based on the relationship of certain portions of the poems to the\nlost Cyclic poems (Cypria, etc.). It is held for instance that the\nCatalogues in Il. II, at all events the Trojan catalogue, were taken\nfrom the Cypria, and again that in the Nekyia (Od. XI) and elsewhere\nuse has been made of the Little Iliad and the Nostoi, as well as\nthe Cypria. But, granting the correctness of these hypotheses, no\nconclusions as to date can be drawn from them unless the dates of the\nlost poems themselves are established. We have seen however that such\nis not really the case; it is admitted that the attribution of these\npoems to Arctinos, Lesches and others does not occur until very late\ntimes. All that can be said is that they appear to have contained\ncertain 'post-Homeric' features, such as purification for manslaughter\n(in the Aithiopis). With these we shall have to deal later. There is no\nneed however to suppose that the lost poems were any more homogeneous\nthan the Iliad and Odyssey.\n\nAgain it is thought that certain passages betray the influence of\nHesiodic poetry, while others indicate genealogies or relationships\nwhich are at variance with statements contained in the latter[302].\nAmong the former we may note especially the list of women in the Nekyia\n(Od. XI 235-327[303]), which is compared with the Hesiodic Catalogue\nof heroines. This evidence would be useful for chronological purposes\nif we knew (i) when Hesiod lived, (ii) that he was the first to\ncompose catalogues of this kind. But unfortunately neither of these\npropositions can be admitted. To the first we have already referred.\nThe majority of scholars hold that Hesiod cannot have lived much after\nthe end of the eighth century. But there is nothing to show that he did\nnot live before that time; for no sound argument can be founded on the\nlast verses of the Theogony. As for the Catalogue it belongs to a class\nof poetry of which the beginnings may go back to a remote antiquity.\nThe presumption is that it originated in times when descent was still\ntraced through the mother.\n\nOn internal grounds many arguments have been brought forward for the\npurpose of showing that the poems in their present form have undergone\na long process of development. With discrepancies in the narrative\nitself we need not concern ourselves. They are doubtless of importance\nfor determining the question of single or composite authorship,\nbut they do not necessarily point to authorship of quite different\nages. For instance, one poet may have conceived of the Achaean camp\nas fortified, another as without fortifications. But that does not\nprove that the two poets were not contemporary, for it will not be\ndisputed that the people of the Heroic Age were capable of building\nfortifications. Again, it may be that the original poem on the 'Wrath\nof Achilles' did not originally contain Books II-VII. But, apart from\none or two details which we shall discuss presently, there is nothing\nto suggest that these books are the product of an entirely different\nperiod.\n\nWe may even take what is perhaps the most extreme case, that of the\nDoloneia. This book is joined on very loosely to what precedes, and its\ncontents are practically disregarded in the rest of the Iliad[304].\nSome critics even in ancient times seem to have believed that it did\nnot originally belong to the poem. Moreover it contains a number of\nfeatures peculiar to itself and several expressions which are regarded\nas indications of lateness. In particular there are some striking\nparallels to the passages in the Odyssey, and it is held that in\ncertain cases they are due to direct influence from the latter[305].\nBut, granting all this, we are still not in a position to decide\nwhether the chronological difference between the Doloneia and the\nearlier parts of the Iliad is to be reckoned at three centuries or two\nor one[306].\n\nAs no definite results can be attained from such considerations as\nthese we will now confine our attention to arguments which are founded\nupon real or supposed differences of culture. The most important class\nof evidence for our purpose is that which relates to the use of the\nmetals. Both bronze and iron are frequently mentioned and there can\nbe no doubt that both were well known. But it has been observed that\nweapons are nearly always said to be of bronze (\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,\netc.[307]), whereas iron is usually mentioned either as a substance\nor in reference to tools, especially hatchets[308]. Only in seven\nverses do we hear of iron weapons, even if we include in this category\nthe knives mentioned in Il. XVIII 34 and XXIII 30. Two verses (_ib._\nVII 141, 143 f.) speak of an iron club and one (_ib._ IV 123) of an\narrowhead, while the other two (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) refer to the arms\nin Odysseus' house collectively.\n\nThe obvious inference from the statistics is that iron tools came into\nuse before iron weapons, and though this was long thought incredible it\nhas recently been shown that there is some evidence for the prevalence\nof such conditions in Palestine[309]. Moreover a somewhat striking\nconfirmation of the Homeric evidence was furnished by the excavations\nat Troy, where a small lump of unwrought iron was found among deposits\nbelonging apparently to the fifth stratum[310]. It has been compared,\nand doubtless rightly, with the lump mentioned in Il. XXIII 826 ff.,\nthough the latter must have been much larger. The presumption is that,\nlike this, it was intended for some tool or agricultural implement;\nfor all the weapons found at Troy--few as they were unfortunately--up\nto the seventh stratum were of bronze. It is probable therefore that\nthe use of the metals not only in the fifth stratum but also in the\nsixth--the great Mycenean fortress--was similar to that which is\nindicated in the Homeric poems.\n\nFor those who believe that these poems are the work of a single author\nthe words \"Iron does of itself attract a man[311]\" (Od. XVI 294, XIX\n13) present a serious difficulty. I cannot believe in view of the\nevidence given above that iron weapons were regularly employed in the\nHeroic Age[312] and that the use of the word \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 is a piece of\ntraditional poetic archaism. Otherwise however there is no alternative\nbut to regard the Odyssey verse as an interpolation[313]. But in\nreality it is no great step from iron knives and arrow-heads to the use\nof the same metal for spears or even swords. If we were to adopt the\nview that the age of the composition of the Homeric poems coincides\nwith the period of transition between the first use of iron for cutting\nand piercing instruments to its general employment for weapons of all\nkinds, we should not necessarily require much more than a century for\ntheir development. Indeed the presence of iron swords in graves of the\nsub-Mycenean period in Crete (cf. p. 185) would seem to show that the\ntransition had begun within what may be regarded practically as the\nHeroic Age itself.\n\nAgain, it is held that many anachronisms or chronological\ninconsistencies appear in the battle scenes of the Iliad. Sometimes\nwe find descriptions of armour and tactics which are thought to be\ncopied from those of Ionic hoplites in early historical times and to\nbe irreconcilable with the type of warfare depicted in other passages.\nMany of the chief men are represented as armed with breast-plates,\nfor which, it is said, there is no evidence in the Mycenean\nage[314]--though this statement is more than doubtful[315]. In regard\nto the form of the shield also there is a discrepancy. Sometimes it\nis described as being of great length, 'like a tower' or 'reaching to\nthe feet'--terms which would suit the long shields often depicted on\nobjects of the Mycenean age. Sometimes on the other hand we hear of\n'round' shields, which suggest the comparatively small circular shield\nof the historical period.\n\nThese inconsistencies only concern us in so far as they are supposed\nto point to widely different ages. Unfortunately our information\nregarding the geometrical period is still very defective and we do not\nknow how far its characteristics were the same in all parts of Greece.\nThe same remarks apply with still greater force to the preceding or\nsub-Mycenean age. Hence, though it may be true that the round shield\ndoes not make its appearance in Attica till the close of the eighth\ncentury, we cannot argue from this that it was unknown in other parts\nof Greece[316]. In the more northern parts of Europe it appears to\nbe the earliest form of shield which has been found. More important\nhowever is the fact that the Shardina and their confederates used the\nround shield as far back as the thirteenth century, while the shields\nrepresented on the Warrior Vase and the Stele from Mycenae (cf. p. 185)\ncan hardly be regarded otherwise than as a variety of the same type.\nHence, whatever may be the connection between the disappearance of\nthe long shield and the growing use of body armour, there is not the\nslightest justification for supposing that the round variety was not\nused in the Heroic Age itself.\n\nThe commonest type of Mycenean shield, the oval type contracted in the\nmiddle, belongs to a class of shields which occur in various parts of\nthe world. It is probably akin to the Zulu shield, though in this the\nlateral contraction has lost its meaning and almost disappeared. The\nprimary purpose of the whole class appears to be for defence against\nmissile weapons (\u1f15\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd), whether light javelins or arrows.\nBut the special characteristic of the Mycenean variety is the use of\na suspending strap (\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd[317]) in place of a handle. The object\nof this was to leave both hands free for the use of a long spear in\nfighting at close quarters--as we see in the representation of a\nlion-hunt engraved on a dagger-blade found at Mycenae. But it is to\nbe observed that the method of fighting most commonly employed by\nHomeric warriors is of quite a different character. First the spear\nwas hurled--apparently with one hand (cf. Il. XXII 320)--and then an\nattack was made with the sword. For both these movements the Mycenean\nshield was obviously ill adapted. Indeed for the second, which required\nagility above everything, it would be more of an encumbrance than a\nprotection. But even when the spear was used for thrusting there is\nnothing to show that it was usually held in both hands[318]. Hence we\ncan hardly avoid concluding that the Homeric tactics were due to the\nuse of a different type of armature, which included a comparatively\nsmall and mobile shield. We need not suppose of course that the\nMycenean shield was unknown or even uncommon. It seems fairly clear\nthat Aias the son of Telamon uses one of this type[319], and so also\nPeriphetes the Mycenean whose shield reached to his feet and caused\nhim to stumble (Il. XV 645 ff.)[320].\n\nA further suggestion is that the Homeric use of the chariot was due to\nthe long shield[321]. The argument in this case is that such shields\ncould not be carried on horseback, while their weight was too great to\nallow them to be borne for any distance on foot. This is an extremely\ndubious theory for two reasons. In the first place the Homeric use\nof the chariot is a problem which concerns not Greece alone but a\nconsiderable part of Europe, including countries where there is no\nevidence for the Mycenean shield[322]. Secondly, it may be regarded as\na general rule that those peoples which use the long shield not only\nfight but also go to battle on foot. Moreover the evidence of the poems\nthemselves does not really bear out the suggested connection. Thus\nthere is no instance of the long shield more clear than that belonging\nto Aias the son of Telamon, and this hero is one of the few leading men\nwho are never said to wear breast-plates. But he is also apparently one\nof the very few who do not possess chariots. Indeed a better case could\nprobably be made out for connecting the chariot with the breast-plate.\n\nThe Homeric use of the chariot gives rise to another question which\nprobably deserves more careful consideration. In the action itself\ndriving appears to be universal; at most we have only one doubtful\ncase of riding (Il. X 513). But there are at least two incidental\nreferences (Il. XV 679 ff., Od. V 371) which betray acquaintance with\nthe latter art. It is quite possible therefore that the knowledge\nof riding was a comparatively recent accomplishment which the poet\nor poets knew to have been foreign to the Heroic Age. Unfortunately\nthe history of equitation is a very obscure subject. In more eastern\ncountries the use of chariots--which here were war-chariots in the true\nsense--continued until quite late times. In Cyprus we hear of them at\nthe beginning of the fifth century; and in Italy they were introduced,\nor re-introduced, still later. But we do not know when riding began.\nIn the wall-sculptures at Karnak[323] which commemorate the victories\nof Sety I and date from towards the close of the fourteenth century\nseveral Hittites are shown on horseback. The scene represents a battle,\nand it may have been the artist's intention to depict what was not a\nnormal custom but the last resource of fugitives whose chariots had\nbroken down. But even then the possibility remains that in emergencies\nor under special conditions riding may have been practised by the\nGreeks long before it was in regular use. The whole subject however\nrequires further investigation, in particular the question whether\nthere is reason for supposing the Hittites to have been more skilled in\nhorsemanship than other nations.\n\nAnother series of inconsistencies has been pointed out in references to\nmarriage customs, particularly in regard to the use of the word \u1f14\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1\n(\u1f15\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1). In several passages this word evidently denotes the sum paid\nby the bridegroom to the bride's guardian; but in others it seems to\nmean presents given to the bride at marriage by her own relatives. We\ncan scarcely doubt that a difference of custom is involved in these\nusages; but it does not necessarily follow that the second group\nof passages belong to a later period than the first. Account must\nbe taken of local divergencies, for there is hardly any subject in\nwhich early Teutonic custom varied so much as in this, even from the\ntime of our oldest records. Again, it has been suggested[324] with\nconsiderable probability that the inconsistencies of the Odyssey are to\nbe attributed to a change of custom--not in the sense that the earlier\nparts of the poem reflect one form and the later parts another, but\nthat the poem as a whole belongs to an age of transition when different\nforms of matrimonial arrangements were in vogue. This is a question\nwith which we shall have to deal more fully in a later chapter.\n\nWe have yet to consider certain inconsistencies in regard to religious\nobservances. Once only (Il. VI 303) is mention made of the figure--a\nseated figure--of a deity, and consequently it is held that the passage\nin question must be late. Recent discoveries however have tended to\nthrow doubt on this view; for a number of statuettes, apparently\nrepresenting deities, have come to light in deposits belonging both to\nthe Mycenean and Geometrical periods, while primitive female figures,\noften in a sitting position, are quite common. The finding of a larger\nimage would now scarcely call forth much surprise, though it cannot be\nsupposed that such statues were of frequent occurrence.\n\nIn references to sanctuaries we sometimes hear of temples (\u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u03af), but\nmore frequently only of shrines or sacred groves. The most certain\nexamples[325] of the former are those of Apollo and Athene at Troy\n(Il. V 446, VI 88, VII 83, etc.) and another of Athene at Athens (Il.\nII 549, Od. VII 81). The sanctuary of Apollo at Chryse is also once\ndescribed as a temple (Il. I 39), though the account of the sacrifice\n(_ib._ 440 ff.) suggests an open-air shrine. Besides these we have\na general reference to temples among the Phaeacians (Od. VI 10) and\na vow made by Odysseus' followers to construct a temple to Helios\non their return home (_ib._ XII 346). Now it is held that all these\npassages belong to a late stage in the growth of the poems and that in\ntheir original form temples were unknown. Sanctuaries of the earlier\nperiod are described only by such terms as \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03ae\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. There can be little doubt that the grove and the open-air\nshrine represent more primitive types of sanctuary than the temple.\nBut the advocates of this theory seem to have overlooked the fact that\namong many peoples the more primitive and the more developed forms of\nsanctuary are found existing side by side[326]. Thus beside the great\ntemple at Upsala, the chief sanctuary of the North, there stood a grove\nwhich appears to have been regarded with still greater veneration,\neven down to the very end of heathen times. Close by was a spring in\nwhich human victims were sacrificed[327]. This case shows how entirely\nunjustifiable it is to assume the non-existence of a temple, when\nonly a shrine or sacred grove happens to be mentioned. We may cite\nas an example the proposed sacrifice to Spercheios in Il. XXIII 145\nff.[328] In general however the Homeric evidence clearly suggests\nthat temples--and the same may possibly be the case with images--were\nchiefly to be found in cities, while the more primitive forms of\nsanctuary remained in less populous places.\n\nI cannot but think that to any student of comparative religion the\nargument derived from the references to sanctuaries will appear\nentirely worthless. The argument against the antiquity of the round\nshield also can hardly be maintained. Of the rest all except the one\nbased on the use of the metals contain a certain element of doubt.\nBut even if we grant their validity in every case it cannot be said\nthat either individually or collectively they necessitate the lapse\nof a long interval between the earlier and later portions of the\npoems. If the interval had amounted to anything like three centuries\ndiscrepancies of a far more striking character must have come to light.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs yet we have taken no account of linguistic inconsistencies. The\npoems as we have them present a medley of forms belonging to different\nages and different dialects. But these inconsistencies appear\neverywhere; it is not the case that certain portions of the poems\ncontain only early forms and others only late ones. The Odyssey is\nsaid to contain a certain number of apparently late usages, especially\nof prepositions and conjunctions, which are wanting or only occur\nrarely in the Iliad. It is held also that within the poems themselves\nearlier and later portions can be distinguished to a certain extent by\nsimilar differences of usage. But the evidence on the whole is slight\nand generally somewhat ambiguous[329]; and consequently linguistic\ncriteria have as a rule played only a subordinate part in the attempts\nwhich have been made to determine the stratification of the poems. We\nmust conclude then either that the later parts were composed in an\nartificial type of language, thoroughly permeated with archaisms, or\nthat the earlier parts have undergone a very considerable amount of\nmodernisation. Indeed the latter explanation must be admitted to some\nextent in any case; for relatively modern forms occur frequently in\nwhat are usually regarded as the very earliest parts of the poems. But\nif the preservation of the poems was dependent on oral tradition for\nany considerable length of time it is very difficult to set a limit to\nthe operations of such a process. In Anglo-Saxon poems--even in those\nwhich were not entirely dependent on oral tradition--modernisation\nprevailed to such an extent that archaic forms disappeared practically\neverywhere, while substitutions of one word for another were very\nfrequent. The more elaborate character of Greek metre doubtless acted\nas a check on this tendency to change, but at the same time I cannot\nhelp thinking that its importance in the history of Homeric poetry has\nbeen greatly underrated.\n\nOn the question of dialect something more must be said. It is true no\ndoubt that the language of the poems as we have them must be regarded\nas Ionic--but only with certain reservations. In the first place\nwe have to note the regular preservation of _h-_, which in strict\nIonic--the language of the Asiatic coast--was lost in the seventh\ncentury, if not earlier. Again, we find a considerable number of forms\nwhich cannot be assigned to any Ionic dialect, e.g. such as contain\n_-\u0101-_ (\u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf, \u03b1\u1f30\u03c7\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd). Special attention must be paid to\nforms which are definitely Aeolic, such as \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f04\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5, \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2.\nWhatever may be the explanation of the preservation of _h-_, it is\nuniversally agreed that the Aeolic element is deeply rooted in the\nhistory of Homeric poetry. Some scholars indeed hold that the poems\nwere originally composed in Aeolic and that their present form is\npractically an Ionic translation. The more general view however is that\nIonic was the language of epic composition from the beginning and that\nsuch forms as \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f04\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5 are derived from early Aeolic lays on\nwhich the epics were for the most part based.\n\nThe legends as to Homer's birthplace are perhaps not without\nsignificance for this question. In ancient times, from Pindar[330]\ndownwards, Smyrna's claim to this honour was the one most generally\nrecognised, and the majority of modern scholars are inclined to the\nview that the birthplace of Homeric poetry is to be sought in or\naround that city. Now Smyrna was originally an Aeolic state, but was\ncaptured by the Ionians of Colophon[331], apparently towards the close\nof the eighth century, from which time onwards it appears as Ionic.\nThe mixture of dialect found in the poems--an older stratum of Aeolic\nunderlying a later stratum of Ionic--would therefore be perfectly\nin accord with what we know of the history of the city, although\nunfortunately no early inscriptions are extant[332].\n\nThe most serious competitor of Smyrna was Chios, the claim of which\nfound favour with several of our earliest authorities. Especially\nimportant is the fact that in a fragment published among the remains of\nSimonides of Ceos (fragm. 85, Bergk), but now frequently attributed to\nSemonides of Samos, who lived about the middle of the seventh century,\na verse of the Iliad (VI 146) is ascribed to the 'man of Chios.' In\nthis island also there dwelt in later times a clan called \u1f49\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9[333]\nwho claimed descent from the poet. But here again there is a tradition\nthat the population was at least in part Aeolic[334]. Moreover, though\nthe language of the earliest extant inscriptions is Ionic in its main\nfeatures, it possesses certain Aeolic characteristics, especially\nthe change of _\u014d\u0306n_ to _\u014d\u0306i_[335] before _s_ (e.g. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03be\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\nagainst Ion. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ae\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9). There is no record of an Ionic conquest\nof the island, as in the case of Smyrna, but we know that it did not\nenter the Ionic confederation until a comparatively late period,\nprobably the seventh century[336].\n\nIt appears then that the peculiarities of Homeric language can be\nsatisfactorily accounted for by the history of either Smyrna or\nChios[337]. But now we are confronted with a very grave difficulty.\nThe same scholars who hold that Smyrna was the birthplace of Homeric\npoetry yet insist that the language of the epics themselves was never\nanything else than Ionic, although they allow that the Iliad was nearly\ncomplete some considerable time before the conquest of Smyrna. This\nposition is quite incomprehensible to me. The only explanation offered,\nso far as I am aware, is that the language of this district may have\nbeen of a mixed character[338]. It is no doubt true that when the coast\nwas first occupied settlers may have come from many different quarters.\nBut when Mimnermos speaks of the capture of 'Aeolic Smyrna' we are\nsurely not justified in assuming that the city had become Ionicised\nbefore that time. On the other hand the supposition that the two\ndialects were not yet differentiated to any considerable extent appears\nto me to be irreconcilable with the evidence of the poems themselves as\nwell as with all that we know of the history of the Greek dialects.\n\nThe question which we are discussing is one which concerns not only\nthe Iliad and Odyssey, together perhaps with certain Hymns and other\nHomeric poems, but also the various works attributed to Hesiod. In\nparticular we may note the Works and Days and the Theogony, both of\nwhich claim to be of Boeotian origin. Whether by chance or not they\ncontain few forms[339] which are peculiar to Aeolic proper, i.e. the\ndialect of Asiatic Aeolis. But in all other respects their language is\nof the Homeric type, i.e. generally speaking Ionic, though with certain\nreservations, notably that \u03dd is generally kept and _\u1fb1_ frequently\noccurs before \u03bf, \u03c9. Now it cannot be contended seriously that this\nextraordinary mixed dialect sprang up naturally on both sides of the\nAegean. The only alternative however is to suppose that Boeotian poets\nborrowed it from Asia. But is this really probable at such a time?\n\nBefore leaving this subject we must notice briefly the alternative\ntheory that the Homeric poems were originally composed in Aeolic.\nAccording to the form in which this theory has become most widely known\nthey were translated into Ionic at a comparatively late date--towards\nthe close of the sixth century[340]. It is rather a serious objection\nto this hypothesis that the poems contain no trace of late Aeolic\ncharacteristics, such as the change of _n_ to _i_ before _s_ (e.g.\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1). Further, if the poems had been known so long in Aeolic,\nthough doubt might have prevailed as to Homer's birthplace, the fact\nthat he was an Aeolian could never have been called in question. Above\nall it is difficult to see how the need of a translation could have\narisen at such a date, for the Aeolic dialect was then well known\nthroughout the Greek world through the poems of Alcaeus and Sappho.\n\nOn the other hand there can be no possible objection in principle to\nthe idea that the poems have undergone a change of dialect. We have\nseen that a large proportion of Anglo-Saxon poetry has passed through\na similar process, generally from one English dialect to another,\nbut occasionally, as in the case of Genesis (vv. 235-851), from a\ncontinental to an English dialect. In some few cases we still have\nparallel texts preserved in different dialects[341]. Indeed, when\nthe poetry of one community becomes current in another community, it\nwould seem that under certain conditions such changes were not merely\npossible but even inevitable. This is a question to which we shall have\nto return in the course of the next few pages.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere is still one vexed question which we have not as yet touched\nupon, namely the relationship of the Homeric poems to the art of\nwriting. Wolf and his immediate successors held that the art was\nunknown when these poems came into existence. Among more recent\nscholars however the general tendency has been to regard this view as\nmistaken. Some leading authorities even hold that considerable portions\nof the poems were written down from the time of their composition.\n\nThe poems themselves contain only one reference to writing, namely in\nIl. VI 168 ff., where it is stated that Proitos sent Bellerophon to\nLycia \"and gave him baneful tokens, writing many deadly things in a\nfolded tablet, which he bade him show to his (Proitos') father-in-law,\nwith a view to his own destruction[342].\" So long as no further\nevidence was forthcoming there was a natural inclination either to\nregard this passage as an interpolation or to interpret it as denoting\nsomething which could not properly be called writing. But of late years\narchaeological investigation has brought to light, especially in Crete,\nnumerous inscriptions dating from very remote times, and there cannot\nnow be any question as to the antiquity of writing in the southern\nAegean. Moreover the Homeric poets themselves can hardly have been\nignorant of the existence of such an art, for rock-hewn figures with\ninscriptions dating from pre-Homeric times--including one which has\nbeen identified with the figure of 'Niobe' mentioned in Il. XXIV 614\nff.--are to be found quite close to the Asiatic coast.\n\nYet in spite of all this it is a very remarkable fact that the whole\n28,000 verses of the Iliad and Odyssey contain only one reference to\nwriting. The significance of this may be appreciated by turning to\nmodern Servian poetry, which abounds with allusions to letters and\nwritten orders, although the minstrels themselves are quite ignorant\nboth of reading and writing. It is true that in Beowulf we find only\none direct reference to writing. But the Iliad and Odyssey together\ncontain nearly nine times as many verses as Beowulf.\n\nOn the whole it seems to me that the evidence for the antiquity\nof writing given above does not prove exactly what it is commonly\nsupposed to do. The inscriptions on the rock-hewn figures are Hittite.\nThe ancient Cretan inscriptions have not yet been deciphered, and\nin view of the later inscriptions found at Praisos the probability\nas yet is distinctly against their being in the Greek language. But\nin any case they date from ages long anterior to Homeric times, and\nthere is nothing to prove their continuity with the writing of the\nhistorical period. With regard to the passage in Il. VI 168 ff. it\nis to be observed firstly that Proitos is one of the very earliest\npersons mentioned in the poems--some three generations removed from\nthe characters of the Trojan story--and secondly that the curious\nphraseology seems rather to suggest that the poet was speaking of\nsomething which he did not clearly understand. On the whole then it is\nmuch to be doubted whether writing was a current and native practice\nduring the period when the poems were composed.\n\nA reservation should perhaps be made with regard to the latest elements\nin the poems. Although definite evidence is wanting, the beginnings of\nthe Greek alphabet may quite probably go back to the ninth century, and\nit may very well be that the poems had not then attained their final\nform. But it should not be assumed that the alphabet was introduced\nsimultaneously throughout the Greek world. Some districts may have\nacquired it generations before others, and Aeolis (including even Chios\nand Smyrna) was probably not one of the more advanced. Further, we must\nadmit that in all probability its use was at first very limited. From\nall analogies we should expect that it was employed for inscriptions,\ncorrespondence, etc. for a very long time before it was made to serve\nany literary purpose. Such apparently was the case with the alphabet of\nancient Rome and with the Runic alphabet almost throughout its history.\nUnless the conditions in Greece were quite exceptional we should not\nexpect the alphabet to come into contact with heroic poetry for a\nconsiderable time.\n\nThe theory that certain portions of the poems were written down from\nthe beginning presupposes of course a use of writing quite different\nfrom that which is brought before us in the story of Bellerophon. This\ntheory[343] is, and necessarily must be, bound up with another theory,\nwhich we have already discussed, that these portions date from a period\nnot earlier than the seventh century. Our discussion has led us to the\nconclusion that the evidence for the latter theory is unsatisfactory.\nBut, apart from this, it is inconceivable that the 'literary' portions,\nwhich are said to amount to several thousand verses, should contain no\nreference, direct or indirect, to the use of writing. In Beowulf we\nfind only one direct reference to writing (v. 1694 f.)--an inscription\nin Runic letters such as had long been in use. But in the Christian\nadditions or 'interpolations' we meet with three examples of the verb\n_scrifan_ (_forscrifan_, _gescrifan_--from Lat. _scribere_), which\nof course is indirect evidence for the use of writing, though in a\ndifferent language[344]. If large portions of the Homeric poems were\nreally of literary origin the authors could scarcely have failed to\nbetray themselves by usages of this kind, even though they deliberately\navoided all mention of writing.\n\nIn addition to this general consideration we have to take account of\nthe linguistic difficulties discussed above. We have seen that Hesiod's\nworks show almost the same form of language as the Homeric poems,\nalthough the Boeotian dialect was quite different from anything spoken\non the other side of the Aegean. Did Hesiod, who lived in the eighth\ncentury, probably before the Ionian conquest of Smyrna, really employ\nthe 'impure Ionic' in which his poems have come down to us? He himself\nsays (W. and D. 650 ff.) that he had never crossed the sea except\n(once apparently) to Chalcis. Presumably then his knowledge of heroic\npoetry was derived either from Boeotia, where he lived, or from Cyme in\nAeolis, from whence his father had emigrated. But Cyme never came into\nIonian hands. Are we to suppose then that either here or in Boeotia\npoets were already employing as their vehicle a form of language which\naccording to the theory under discussion owed its existence (whether\nin ordinary speech or only in poetry) to certain political changes in\na third district--changes too which had hardly begun much before the\ntime of Hesiod? This hypothesis seems to me quite incredible[345].\n\nOn the other hand if Hesiod's poems have undergone a change of dialect\nsince their original composition may not the Homeric poems have\npassed through the same process? In this case of course such a change\nwould come about quite naturally if Smyrna or Chios was the original\nhome of the poems. But here we must notice a curious feature in the\n'epic dialect' to which we have already referred. Except in Aeolic\nforms--and this exception deserves to be remarked--the poems almost\nalways preserve initial _h-_[346]. This is a characteristic which the\n'epic dialect' shares with western or European Ionic but not with the\nlanguage of the Asiatic coast[347]. Its presence raises a distinct\ndifficulty in the way of supposing that the poems were Ionicised in\ntheir original home.\n\nNow if the Homeric poems had been written down in Aeolic and preserved\nin literary form we can hardly doubt that they would have retained\ntheir original dialect, just like the works of Alcman, Alcaeus, and\nSappho. It must not be argued that Ionic was the proper language of\nthe epic, Doric and Aeolic of the lyric; for if the Homeric poems had\nbecome generally known in Aeolic nothing could have prevented this\ndialect from becoming the language of the epic also. We may assume then\nthat they were not transmitted in written Aeolic. But the same argument\nreally militates against the theory that they were written in Asiatic\nIonic[348], though in this case the difference of dialect is less\nstriking.\n\nA form of language practically identical with that of the epics\nappears in the remains of several poets of the seventh and sixth\ncenturies, such as Archilochos and Solon. The only noticeable\ndifference is in the proportion of non-Ionic forms which they use. Now\nsince these authors belonged to quite different districts we must, if\nwe are to trust our evidence, infer the existence of a kind of literary\nlanguage at this time. Its difference from Asiatic Ionic is of course\ncomparatively slight, and in the texts which have come down to us it is\nnot always carefully observed[349]. Still there is a sufficient amount\nof regularity to show that it was generally recognised.\n\nThe true home of this literary language must not be sought in Athens,\nbut rather in Euboea or the Cyclades; and we may probably attribute\nits spread, in part at least, to the influence of the poems of\nArchilochos. But it certainly affected the writing of Attic for some\ntwo centuries, and there can be little doubt that it was thoroughly\ndomiciled in Athens at quite an early date--probably in the seventh\ncentury. I cannot see any objection therefore to supposing that it\nwas in Athens that both the Homeric and Hesiodic poems acquired those\npeculiar linguistic characteristics which we comprehend under the\nterm 'epic dialect.' This of course brings us back to the story that\nthe poems were collected or written down by order of Peisistratos.\nThe evidence for the story is late, and its truth is hotly contested\nby many scholars. But at all events it has the merit of providing a\nsatisfactory explanation of the linguistic phenomena.\n\nCertainly, if we may judge from the analogy of other peoples, heroic\npoetry would not by any means be among the first species of literature\nto get committed to writing. There is no reason whatever for supposing\nthat anything of this kind was written down in England before the\neighth century, i.e. at least a century after the language was first\napplied to literary purposes, in Aethelberht's time. The same remark\nseems to be true of Ireland, Germany and the North, while Bosnian\nheroic poetry is being written down only in our own generation, and not\nby natives of the country. It is only natural therefore to expect that\nthe Homeric poems would be written down according to an orthography\nwhich was already well established.\n\nThis orthography no doubt represents more or less truly the form in\nwhich the poems were recited in Athens at the time. But does it also\nrepresent the form in which they were recited at (let us say) Sicyon?\nThat is a question upon which we have no direct evidence. But it is\nworth noting that in Doric and other non-Ionic states we find a number\nof ancient inscriptions in hexameters or elegiacs which contain epic\nwords and forms. We may note especially the Gen. sg. ending -\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, e.g.\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, \u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, \u0391\u03c1\u03b1\u03b8\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, and above all false imitations of epic\nforms, such as \u03a4\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1\u03dd\u03bf[350]. But in all these inscriptions Ionic\ncharacteristics are conspicuously absent[351]. Does this mean that\nwherever the heroic poems were introduced the rhapsodists tried to\naccommodate them, as far as possible, to the language of the district?\nBut if so, is it possible that the Ionic element in our texts is\nwholly due to the rhapsodists? A Chalcidian or Naxian or Athenian\naudience would certainly experience at least as much difficulty in\nfollowing a purely Aeolic Iliad as a southern English audience would\nhave in listening to a purely Northumbrian or Mercian Beowulf. On the\nother hand an Iliad Ionicised in Chalcis or Naxos would be easily\nintelligible in Athens[352].\n\nAt all events we have seen that there is a very serious objection on\nchronological grounds to the view that Hesiod's poems were composed\nin a form of 'impure Ionic' borrowed from the Asiatic coast. In this\ncase it is surely far more probable that the Ionic element is due\nto the rhapsodists, whether in Chalcis or Athens. But is there any\nreal reason for denying that the Homeric poems may have had a similar\nexperience? This is a question which I do not feel qualified to answer.\nBut it seems to me to deserve more attention from scholars than it has\nreceived as yet.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn this chapter we have seen that the Homeric poems contain elements\nof great antiquity. Although we have no means of fixing an exact date\nfor these elements, we can hardly doubt that they originated at a\ntime before iron had come into general use for weapons. According to\nthe prevailing opinion of archaeologists this innovation cannot have\ntaken place after the tenth century. We need not suppose that any\nconsiderable portions of the poems in their present form date from such\nan early period. But the 'type' must have been fixed by that time, and\nto a considerable extent also the subject-matter.\n\nStill more clearly we have seen that there is no ground for supposing\nthat the earlier and later elements are separated from one another\nby a wide interval. For the idea that the earlier elements reflect\nthe conditions of the last age of Mycenean splendour--probably about\nthe thirteenth century--while the later elements betray acquaintance\nwith conditions of the seventh century, we have not been able to find\nany justification. The period intervening between the Mycenean age\nand the beginning of the classical age is certainly one which has as\nyet yielded comparatively little to archaeological research. But our\ndiscussion has led us to infer that the conditions of life reflected\nin the poems throughout belong to some part of this period, rather\nthan that they are due to a combination taken from the preceding and\nfollowing ages[353] with a more or less blank interval of some five or\nsix centuries.\n\nI have spoken advisedly of earlier and later 'elements' rather than of\nearlier and later 'portions' in the poems. Elaborate analyses, such as\nthat proposed for the Odyssey by Prof. von Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff, are\nadmittedly hopeless unless we assent to the hypothesis that the person\nresponsible for the final form of the poem possessed a written text;\nand we have seen that this hypothesis is open to grave objections. The\nexistence of different strata in the work must doubtless be conceded.\nWe may even allow that it is built up out of shorter epics. But I\ncannot admit that such a poem as the Odyssey can be successfully\nconstructed out of shorter ones by stringing the latter together,\neven if we do grant that the additions made by the editor amount to\na sixth part of the whole[354]. It is questionable therefore whether\nwe are justified in regarding the last stratum as the work of an\n'editor'--whether we ought not rather to regard this person as the\n'author' of our poem. He must have used earlier pieces, and he may have\nincorporated them in large mass in his work. But we have no guarantee\nthat he did not greatly expand his materials as well as provide\nconnecting links between them.\n\nIn the Iliad we are confronted to a certain extent with the same\nproblems. But the process of unification does not appear to have\nbeen carried out so thoroughly and the proportion of early matter\nincorporated is probably much greater. The point however which I would\nespecially emphasise in both cases alike is that the unification\nprocess cannot be used as an argument for lateness of date. If we bear\nin mind the undoubtedly archaic character of both poems, the paucity of\ninconsistencies points to an entirely opposite conclusion. The greater\nthe amount of matter which we attribute to the last strata, the shorter\nmust be the period during which the poems grew until they reached their\nfinal form.\n\nLastly we have seen that though the linguistic evidence agrees very\nwell with the tradition that 'Homer' belonged to Smyrna (or Chios),\nthere are very serious objections to the view that the poems were\noriginally composed in the Ionic dialect[355]. They may have been\nsubsequently Ionicised in their original home, but even that is\nscarcely certain. The form in which they have come down to us belongs\nproperly to the western Ionic of the islands, which in early times was\nused as a literary language in Athens.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[292] Plutarch, _Solon_, cap. 10; Diogenes Laertius, _Solon_, cap. 48,\netc. In some form or other the story was known to Aristotle (_Rhet._ I\n15).\n\n[293] Archilochos, Fragm. 153 (in Bergk's _Poetae Lyrici Graeci_).\n\n[294] Cf. Croisset, _Rev. des deux Mondes_, 1907, 5, p. 605.\n\n[295] Plutarch, _De Musica_, III 9.\n\n[296] Hesiod, Fragm. 65 f. (in Rzach's edition, 1902).\n\n[297] In Od. VI 162 ff. there is a reference to the sanctuary of Apollo\nin Delos.\n\n[298] _Die Composition der Odyssee_, p. 85 f.; _Die hom. Odyssee_\u00b2, p.\n287 ff.\n\n[299] The references to the spring \u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b7 (cf. Od. X 107 f.) cannot\nbe regarded as conclusive, since such connections are capable of more\nthan one explanation--even if we bear in mind the name of the adjacent\nmountain (\u1f08\u03c1\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7). The mountain itself may have been known to the\nGreeks from early times.\n\n[300] In view of the evidence pointed out at the close of the last\nchapter one will do well to hesitate before denying the possibility of\nsuch distant expeditions in early times. But any communication which\nmay have existed must have been interrupted by the invasions of the\nBithynoi and Treres, probably in the ninth and eighth centuries. Note\nmay also be taken here of what is said about the Cimmerioi in Od. XI\n14-19; cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II, pp. 367 f., 445 f.\n\n[301] Cf. especially Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff, _Hom. Unt._ p. 24 ff. The\ntheory that the Ephyre of II 328 must be a different place from the\nEphyre of I 259 seems to me very problematical if the author of the\nsecond book had only a vague knowledge of the geography of western\nGreece. Again, if Ilos Mermerides (I 259) is taken from the story of\nthe Argo, is it really necessary that the source should be a different\none from that referred to in XII 69 ff.?\n\n[302] From this it has been argued that the 'Odyssey' known to Hesiod\nmust have differed greatly from the poem which has come down to us. But\nit is to be remembered that there are quite as noticeable discrepancies\nbetween the Odyssey and the Iliad.\n\n[303] We shall have occasion later to notice more than one point in\nwhich this passage departs from the customary Homeric standards.\n\n[304] Except probably in XIV 9 ff., as has been ingeniously pointed\nout by Mr Lang (_Homer and his Age_, p. 276 ff.). In the same chapter\nMr Lang shows that several features in the Doloneia which have been\ninterpreted as marks of lateness may very well be due to the peculiar\ncircumstances of the situation.\n\n[305] Gem\u00f6ll, _Hermes_, XV 557 ff. (cf. XVIII 308 ff.). Cf. also\nShewan, _Class. Quarterly_, IV 73 ff., where this view is rejected.\n\n[306] Mr Lang (_Homer and his Age_, p. 265 ff.) has called attention to\nthe fact that in v. 261 ff. Odysseus is represented as wearing a cap\nof a type which appears to have been in use during the Mycenean age.\nIf it could be shown that the article in question was peculiar to that\nperiod, the lateness of the book would certainly be open to serious\nquestion.\n\n[307] Bronze is mentioned 279 times in the Iliad and 80 times in the\nOdyssey. In a large proportion of these cases the reference is to\nweapons. Cf. Helbig, _Das homerische Epos_, p. 329 ff.\n\n[308] Iron is mentioned altogether 48 times. In nine cases it is spoken\nof merely as a substance--a possession or article of trade. To these\nwe may add fifteen more in which the word is used metaphorically as\na standard of hardness, etc., and one (Od. IX 393) which refers to\nthe testing of iron in water. Iron tools or implements are mentioned\nthirteen times, apart from the two references to knives given above. We\nhear also of iron chains (Od. I 204), the iron axle-tree of a (divine)\nchariot-wheel (Il. V 723), and the iron door of Tartarus (_ib._ VIII\n15); cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_\u00b2, p. 281 ff.\n\n[309] Cf. Macalister, _Palestine Expl. Fund, Quart. Rep._, 1903, p.\n199; Lang, _Class. Rev._ XXII, p. 47.\n\n[310] Cf. D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, p. 368.\n\n[311] \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. Cf. Burrows, _The Discoveries\nin Crete_, p. 214 ff.\n\n[312] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, p. 294 f. Prof.\nRidgeway allows the occasional use of bronze swords, e.g. in the case\nof Euryalos the Phaeacian (Od. VIII 403-6). But the swords of Paris,\nPatroclos, Achilles and Odysseus (Il. III 334 f., XVI 135 f., XIX 372\nf., Od. X 261 f.) are described in very similar terms (\u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd). Further, the tendency of bronze swords to snap off short at\nthe hilt is well illustrated by the case of Lycon in Il. XVI 338 f.\n\n[313] Cf. Lang, _Homer and his Age_, p. 192 f.\n\n[314] Cf. Reichel, _\u00dcber homerische Waffen_ (Abh. d. arch.-epigr.\nSeminares d. Univ. Wien, Heft XI), p. 79 ff.\n\n[315] Cf. p. 191 and Evans, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\nXXX 213 f.\n\n[316] Cf. Ridgeway, _op. cit._ pp. 324 f., 475.\n\n[317] This strap seems to have been used for carrying even\ncomparatively small shields down to a much later period. It is not\nfound apparently in the representations of the Shardina, though they\nhave an arm-strap as well as a handle.\n\n[318] The Shardina on the temple of Medinet Habu and the warriors\nrepresented on the Stele hold their spears poised in their right hands,\nprecisely at the same angle. But it is not quite clear to me whether a\ncast or thrust is intended.\n\n[319] \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b0\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (Il. XII 219, etc.). There is a reference\nno doubt to the hero's great stature.\n\n[320] Very recently the history of Greek shields has been treated\nat length by Dr G. Lippold (_M\u00fcnchener Arch\u00e4ologische Studien_, pp.\n399-504). This work is largely taken up with a criticism of Reichel's\ntheories, and in the course of the discussion it is pointed out that\nthe latter are in many points insufficiently supported by evidence.\nDr Lippold (pp. 406, 474) seems to have no hesitation in assigning\nthe Warrior Vase and its congeners to the late Mycenean age--he does\nnot distinguish between 'Mycenean' and 'sub-Mycenean'--and he also\nrecognises (p. 461 ff.) that two kinds of shields figure in the Homeric\npoems. The 'tower' shield however is identified by him with the Dipylon\nshield, from which he believes the 'Boeotian' shield to be descended.\nHe holds that the round shield was of Oriental origin, since it was\nused by the Assyrians in the ninth century, and that it was first\nintroduced into Greece towards the end of the Mycenean period; then,\nafter being banished for a while from the Greek mainland by the Dipylon\nshield, it was re-introduced, in a somewhat modified form, towards the\nend of the Dipylon (Geometrical) period. The Homeric poems are held to\nreflect the time of transition when it was re-introduced; but no date\nappears to be given except that it was before the eighth century (p.\n468). This explanation seems to me to be open to a serious objection,\nnamely that the Homeric shields will then have to reflect a different\nage from that indicated by the Homeric evidence on the use of the\nmetals; for the latter clearly belongs to the close of the Mycenean--or\nrather 'sub-Mycenean'--period. So far as I can see, it is only by Dr\nMackenzie's equation of the Homeric poems with the Warrior Vase and\ncertain East Cretan graves (cf. p. 185) that we can obtain a consistent\nand intelligible sequence. Of course it may very well be that the round\nshield was banished for a time from the Greek mainland by the Dipylon\ntype. On the other hand the suggestion that the former was of Assyrian\norigin surely requires evidence earlier than the ninth century; for\nwe find it used by the Shardina, who cannot properly be regarded as\nOriental, as far back as the thirteenth century. I have to thank Mr A.\nB. Cook for calling my attention to Dr Lippold's work.\n\n[321] Cf. Reichel, _op. cit._ p. 53 f.\n\n[322] Long shields were regularly used during the La T\u00e8ne period by\nthe Celtic peoples, and also by many of the Teutonic peoples probably\nmuch later. But they seem to have been of a totally different type\nfrom the Mycenean. In late times they were certainly of great length\n(cf. Diodorus, V 30, and the figures on the bowl of Gundestrup); but\nthe earliest examples (e.g. the oval shields depicted on the Hallstatt\nsword-sheath) may really be modifications of the round shield.\n\n[323] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Origin and Influence of the Thoroughbred\nHorse_, p. 510. A similar case occurs in a painting representing the\nvictory of Rameses II over the Hittites, figured in Meyer's _Geschichte\ndes alten Aegyptens_ (plate following p. 290).\n\n[324] Cauer, _Grundfragen d. Homerkritik_\u00b2, p. 294 ff.\n\n[325] It is uncertain whether the sanctuaries of Apollo at Pytho\n(Delphoi) and of Poseidon at Scheria (Il. IX 404 f., Od. VIII 79 ff.,\nVI 266 f.) are regarded as temples; cf. Cauer, _op. cit._ p. 301 f. In\nthe former case however it is decidedly probable.\n\n[326] Many well-known survivals of such usage occur in Greece itself.\n\n[327] Adam Brem. IV 27: _corpora autem suspenduntur in lucum qui\nproximus est templo. is enim lucus tam sacer est gentilibus ut singulae\narbores eius ex morte uel tabo immolatorum diuinae credantur._ Cf. also\nthe (contemporary) schol. 134: _prope illud templum est arbor maxima\nlate ramos extendens, semper uiridis in hieme et aestate, cuius illa\ngeneris sit nemo scit. ibi etiam est fons ubi sacrificia paganorum\nsolent exerceri et homo uiuus immergi. qui dum non inuenitur ratum erit\nuotum populi._\n\n[328]\n\n \u03a3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03af', \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f20\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1fe5\u03ad\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b8' \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03b7\u03bd,\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4' \u1f14\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03bb' \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03c5\u03ae\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n[329] The Appendices in Miss Stawell's _Homer and the Iliad_ (pp.\n238-326) suggest that many of the instances commonly cited are due to\ninsufficient consideration.\n\n[330] Fragm. 189, Boeckh.\n\n[331] Cf. Mimnermos, fragm. 9. 5 f. (Bergk), Herodotus, I 150, etc.\nAccording to Pausanias (V 8. 7) Smyrna had become Ionic before the year\n688; cf. Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff, _S.-B. der Akad. der Wiss. zu Berlin_,\n1906, p. 52, note.\n\n[332] Acquaintance with the district round Smyrna is shown by the\nreference to the figure of 'Niobe' on Mt Sipylos in Il. XXIV 614 ff.,\nalthough the identification of this figure is still disputed.\n\n[333] On the problems connected with this name see Allen, _Classical\nQuarterly_, I 135 ff.\n\n[334] Stephanus Byzant. s. v. \u0392\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2.\n\n[335] But not the corresponding change of _an_ to _ai_ (cf. \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2, \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1).\n\n[336] Cf. Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff, _op. cit._ p. 52 f.\n\n[337] The Ionic states of Clazomenai and Phocaia, to the west and\nnorth-west of Smyrna, seem to have been founded at a comparatively late\nperiod, though probably in the eighth century. Since the promontory\nof \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd opposite Chios and to the south-west of Erythrai, has an\nAeolic name, it is possible that the whole of the coast north of Teos\nwas once occupied by Aeolians.\n\n[338] Cf. Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff, _op. cit._ p. 75 and (for a\ncriticism) Cauer, _Grundfragen_\u00b2, p. 181 ff.\n\n[339] The Shield of Heracles contains a number of clearly Aeolic forms\n(\u1f04\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f54\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9, etc.).\n\n[340] Cf. Fick, _Die homerische Odyssee_ (1883), and _Die homerische\nIlias_ (1886), where the poems are reconstructed in their original\nAeolic form.\n\n[341] E.g. the two texts of Riddle XXXVI (both printed in Sweet's\n_Oldest English Texts_, p. 150 f.) and the texts of Caedmon's Hymn\nfrom the Moore MS. of Bede's Eccles. History (_ib._ p. 149) and the\nAnglo-Saxon version (IV 24). Reference may also be made to the Dream\nof the Cross and the extracts given in the inscription on the Ruthwell\nCross. A portion of the Old Saxon Genesis is printed, together with\nthe Anglo-Saxon version, in Cook and Tinker's _Translations from Old\nEnglish Poetry_, p. 184 f.\n\n[342]\n\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03b7\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4' \u1f45 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u1f70,\n \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70,\n \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4' \u1f20\u03bd\u03ce\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1fa7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff7 \u1f44\u03c6\u03c1' \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[343] The analysis of the Odyssey given by Prof. v.\nWilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff admittedly postulates a written text (_Hom.\nUntersuch._ p. 293). But I cannot assent to the proposition that the\nCatalogue of Ships in itself must come from a written source. This list\nscarcely differs in principle from the catalogues of Widsith.\n\n[344] Further indirect evidence, of native origin, is supplied by the\nword _facenstafas_ (O. Norse _feiknstafir_) in v. 1018, if the original\nmeaning of this compound was 'harmful runes' (used magically). Cf. also\nvv. 317, 382, 458, 1753.\n\n[345] It may be added that we really know nothing of the Ionic of\nHesiod's time. It is quite uncertain how far it had already developed\nthose characteristics which we find in our texts.\n\n[346] The few exceptional forms such as (\u03c4') \u03bf\u1f56\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (Od. XVII 343) may\nbe due to fairly late scribes familiar with (eastern) Ionic texts.\n\n[347] We may note also the absence of the literary Ionic forms \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5,\n\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, etc.\n\n[348] It is true that we do not know exactly when _h-_ was lost.\nBut before that change took place \u0397 cannot have been used for _\u0113_;\nconsequently a wholesale \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 would be involved (doubtless\nalso affecting the representation of _\u014d_), just as in the case of\nAthens.\n\n[349] Cf. Hoffmann, _Griech. Dial._ III, p. 549 f.; Fick, _Neue\nJahrb\u00fccher_, I 504 ff.\n\n[350] Cauer, _Delectus Inscr. Graec._ 83, 84, 91. We may compare also\nsuch epic expressions as \u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf, \u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf,\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03dd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b8\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (_ib._ 54, 83, 445, 202), and, more particularly, an\ninscription on a bronze discus from Cephallenia (cf. Cook, _Class.\nReview_, XIII 77 f.):\n\n \u0395\u03c7\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5 \u0394\u03b9\u03dd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03d9\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd h\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n\n(cf. Hom. Hymn. XXXIII 9; Il. II 631).\n\n[351] The same remark is true of heroic names occurring in Doric\ninscriptions, e.g. \u03dc\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1, \u039a\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 on a vase (Cauer, _op.\ncit._ 78) found near Caere. So also with the heroic names used by\nPindar and other non-Ionic poets--not to mention the Latin forms. Yet\nthese poets use the Ionic forms of foreign names, such as \u039c\u1fc6\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9 (Cypr.\n_Ma-to-i_), which had come to them presumably through Ionic channels.\nOn the other hand we find in inscriptions on Chalcidian vases more\npurely Ionic forms, e.g. \u0391\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2 (_ib._ 545), than those preserved in\nour text. These seem to count against any place except Athens as the\nhome of the final form of the 'epic dialect.'\n\n[352] From the fact that Pindar and other non-Ionic authors use what is\napparently an Ionic form--indeed, strictly speaking, a western Ionic\nform--in the poet's name (\u1f4d\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), while they give the names of the\nheroes themselves in non-Ionic form, we are justified in concluding\nthat they had acquired the former from a different (presumably\nliterary) source. Certainly the earliest references to the poet come\nfrom Ionic authors. Again, Thucydides (III 104) is clearly recording\na generally accepted opinion when he quotes the Hymn to the Delian\nApollo under Homer's name; and I can see no reason for doubting the\nidentity of Semonides' \u03a7\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1 (cf. p. 209) with the author of this\npoem (v. 172: \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1, \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a7\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u1fc3). The Hymn\ndates probably from the period when Chios was in process of becoming\nIonicised. At such a time the repertoire of a Chian minstrel would have\nan exceptionally favourable opportunity of gaining currency (naturally\nunder his own name) in Ionic circles--in the Cyclades probably as well\nas in Ionia itself.\n\n[353] Cf. Reichel, _op. cit._ p. 59: \"Das Epos schildert, wie in allen\nDingen, auch hier die \u00e4ltere Prachtzeit,\" and pp. 63, 102 f., where\nthe first appearance of the round shield (of which the knowledge is\ngranted, p. 55 ff.) is referred to the middle of the eighth century,\nand that of breast-plates to about the beginning of the seventh century.\n\n[354] Prof. v. Wilamowitz-M\u00f6llendorff holds that the editor was a\nperson of inferior ability and that the poem as a whole is not a\nsuccess; but this view is scarcely in accordance with the generally\nreceived opinion.\n\n[355] It is worth noting that these objections apply even to what\nare commonly regarded as among the latest parts of the poems. Thus\nin Od. XXIV 305, where Odysseus describes himself as \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, the point is entirely spoilt by the Ionic form.\nThat the true form should be Aeolic (-\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd-) is rendered more than\nprobable by such names as \u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u0390\u03b4\u03b7--of which at least\nthe second likewise belongs to the 'later' portions of the poem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nEARLY GREEK POETRY AND MINSTRELSY.\n\n\nIn Chapter V we saw that four well-marked stages may be distinguished\nin the history of Teutonic heroic poetry. The first is that of strictly\ncontemporary court poetry, dealing with the praises or the adventures\nof living men. The second is that of epic or narrative court poetry,\nwhich celebrates the deeds of heroes of the past, though not of a very\nremote past. The third is the popular stage, during which the same\nstories were handled by village minstrels. The last stage is that in\nwhich the old subjects again found favour with the nobility in Germany\nand were treated in a new form which reflected the conditions of the\nage of chivalry. We must now see whether any such stages can be traced\nin the history of Greek heroic poetry.\n\nFor the first stage plenty of evidence is supplied by the Homeric\npoems. In the Odyssey we meet with several persons who seem to be\nprofessional court minstrels. Such are Demodocos at the court of\nAlcinoos and Phemios at that of Odysseus, while others are mentioned at\nthe courts of Agamemnon and Menelaos. Both Demodocos and Phemios are\nrepresented as singing of recent events, namely the adventures of the\nAchaeans on their return from Troy, though the former also produces\none song upon a mythical subject. The song or recitation is invariably\naccompanied upon a lyre, probably much in the same way as the Teutonic\nminstrel used his harp[356].\n\nAs among the Teutonic peoples, we hear also occasionally of royal\nminstrels. Paris appears to be a skilful musician (Il. III 54), while\nAchilles is amusing himself by singing the 'glories of heroes' (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd) when he is visited by Aias and Odysseus (_ib._ IX 189). But the\nstatus of even the professional minstrel was, sometimes at least, one\nof considerable importance. Agamemnon, on his departure to Troy, is\nsaid to have entrusted his queen to the care of a certain minstrel (Od.\nIII 267 f.)--a case which may be compared with several Teutonic stories\nrelating both to the Heroic Age and the Viking Age. The Phaeacian\nminstrel Demodocos is blind, like the Frisian Bernlef; but, unlike the\nlatter, he seems to have a recognised position at Alcinoos' court.\nHe is evidently regarded as a person of distinction; in VIII 483 we\nfind him described as \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, a term frequently applied to princes. For\nminstrels of Bernlef's type we have no clear evidence in the Homeric\npoems. In Od. XVII 382 ff. we hear of invitations given to minstrels;\nbut the reference may be to persons of Widsith's class. The same seems\nto be true of the Thracian minstrel Thamyris mentioned in Il. II 595\nff.; for it is stated that he was coming from Eurytos of Oichalia when\ndisaster befell him.\n\nOn the whole then the court minstrelsy of the Homeric poems bears a\nstriking resemblance to that of the Teutonic Heroic Age. We cannot,\nit is true, obtain any corroborative evidence for its existence from\ncontemporary historical documents. But the negative evidence is almost\nas decisive. Even in the earliest times of which we have record no\ntrace of such an institution is to be found in Greece. We hear of\nrhapsodists at Sicyon as early as the beginning of the sixth century;\nbut they are clearly persons of Bernlef's type, reciting 'Homeric'\npoems, i.e. stories of ancient times. Moreover they were viewed with\ndisfavour by the ruler. Another type of professional poet may be seen\nin such persons as Alcman. These were what may be called 'state-poets';\nsometimes they were trainers of the state choruses. But there is\nnothing to show that they were court poets. We hear also of poets,\nsometimes men of noble birth, like Eumelos, who composed hymns for\nfestal occasions. But these too worked for the glorification of the\nstate, or indeed for that of any state which employed them, and their\nposition was essentially different from that of the court minstrel who\ncomposes for his lord's gratification. Minstrelsy of the Homeric type\nis conceivable only in an age of real kingship, and it is incredible\nthat such a type could have been invented after that institution had\nceased to exist. Indeed the nearest Greek analogy to it is probably to\nbe found in such poets as Anacreon who flourished at the courts of the\nlater tyrants. Their poems however dealt with an entirely different\nclass of subjects.\n\nIt is true that minstrels are mentioned beside kings in a passage\nin Hesiod's Theogony (v. 94 ff.), both being said to derive their\nendowment from divine sources[357]. But there is nothing to show that\nthese were court minstrels. At all events it is clear enough from\nanother passage in the same poem (v. 22 ff.), as well as from the Works\nand Days, that Hesiod himself was not a man of this type. Moreover,\nthe subjects with which the minstrels are said to deal are the 'famous\ndeeds (glories) of men of old' (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd). The reference\nthen is to heroic poetry, but in a stage not earlier than Stage II of\nour scheme. The passage however is undoubtedly interesting as showing a\nstage intermediate between Homeric minstrels and the later rhapsodists.\nFrom the word \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af we may perhaps infer that the musical\naccompaniment, which the latter seem to have discarded, was still in\nuse.\n\n * * * * *\n\nProbably no one will suggest that the Homeric poems themselves are\nproducts of the type of minstrelsy (Stage I) which we have been\nconsidering. Now therefore we must try to ascertain which of the other\nthree stages they correspond to. Curiously enough no such question as\nthis appears to have been discussed in any of the numerous Homeric\nresearches which the last half century has produced. Nearly all writers\nhave completely ignored the existence of the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems.\nOn the other hand medieval German poems, such as the Nibelungenlied,\nhave been freely used in illustration of Homeric problems, and there\ncan be no question that in many respects the supposed analogy has had\nfar-reaching influence on their interpretation. In the application of\nthese illustrations as a rule no account whatever has been taken of\nwhat we may call the stratification of Teutonic heroic poetry.\n\nLet us now consider briefly the history of the Nibelungenlied. We have\nseen that the origin of the story is to be sought in poems composed\nprobably within memory of certain events with which it deals, and that\nthe subject appears to have been worked up into a somewhat elaborate\nform within the next two centuries. It can scarcely be doubted that\nthese early poems were products of court-minstrelsy and that their\nform was that of the old Teutonic alliterative verse. Later however\nthere came a time when all heroic poetry passed out of fashion among\nthe higher classes, and when this story, like the rest, must have been\npreserved only by village minstrels. Then, after a lapse of several\ncenturies, it appears again in an entirely different metrical form,\nand permeated through and through with the ideas and customs of the\nage of chivalry. Little beyond the bare outlines of the story can have\nbeen inherited from the original poems, and even these appear to have\nundergone considerable modification.\n\nNow if the history of Homeric poetry is really parallel to this, we\nshall have to suppose that the stories were first treated in court\npoetry about the close of the pre-migration period; that after\nflourishing for a while they fell out of favour in royal circles and\nwere preserved only by village minstrels, at whose hands they underwent\na long process of disintegration; and that finally they formed the\nbasis of new aristocratic poems some six or seven centuries after they\nfirst saw the light. In order to present a complete parallel the later\npoems must use a new metrical form, of foreign derivation, which will\npreclude the possibility of their containing a single verse of the\noriginal poems. The customs and ideas too which they reflect must be\nwholly, or almost wholly, those of their own period, and not those of\nthe Heroic Age.\n\nBut it is manifest that this description will not fit the Homeric\npoems in any way. According to the opinion held by the majority of\nscholars the customs and ideas reflected by the Homeric poems are\ninconsistent--sometimes they are those of the Heroic Age, sometimes\nthose of the poets' own age. Indeed many scholars hold that the\nformer type predominates. Personally I am not ready to admit that\nthe difference between the two ages was anything like so great as is\ncommonly assumed. But in any case it must be granted that in some\nrespects, e.g. in regard to political geography and the use of the\nmetals, the conditions of the Heroic Age are truly reflected almost\neverywhere. Further it is commonly held that considerable portions of\nthe poems go back, more or less in their present form, not perhaps\nto the Heroic Age itself, but at all events a long distance in that\ndirection. We must conclude therefore that, unless modern criticism has\ngone hopelessly astray, the Nibelungenlied presents no true analogy to\nthe history of the Homeric poems.\n\nNow let us take the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems. It is obvious enough that\nhere there is at all events a superficial resemblance between the two\ncases, although the Greek poems are on a much larger scale. Both sets\nof poems are the work of colonists who had crossed the sea, and both\nequally suppress all reference to the existence of such settlements. It\nis true that the scene of the Iliad is laid in a district not far from\nthat in which it appears to have been composed. But this district is\nrepresented as being in possession of an alien people. The compatriots\nof the poets--who clearly speak from the Achaean side--are uniformly\nrepresented as dwelling on the west of the Aegean. But these after all\nare merely accidental coincidences. Far more important for us is the\nfact, which we have already noted, that both sets of poems carry the\nhistory of heroic poetry back to court minstrels who are represented as\nliving in the Heroic Age itself. The question which we have to face is\nwhether or not the Iliad and Odyssey likewise resemble the Anglo-Saxon\npoems in being themselves products of court-minstrelsy in direct\ncontinuation of that which they depict as existing in the Heroic Age.\n\nIf this question is incapable of being answered we must, I think,\nconclude that the historical study of early Greek poetry is futile. No\nimpartial observer can fail to have been struck by the immense strides\nmade within the last generation by Greek archaeology, as compared with\nthe very small amount of progress made from the literary side--at\nleast if progress is to be judged by the attainment of any general\nconsensus of opinion. Experienced archaeologists can now very soon\ndetermine whether the remains which they find are those of a village\nor a palace, and whether they belong to (let us say) the classical\nor the geometrical or the Mycenean period. Again, in the case of\nsites long occupied they can easily detect the existence of different\nstrata--especially if a palace has been built on the site of an\nearlier village, or if a village settlement has intervened between two\n'palace-periods.' Is it really impossible to distinguish such strata\nin the history of poetry, or is the absence of progress which we have\nnoted to be attributed to other causes--perhaps that the criticism has\nbeen of too subjective a character?\n\nNow it is almost universally agreed that the Homeric poems are\nconsiderably older than any other form of Greek literature which has\ncome down to us. Some scholars indeed hold that the latest portions of\nthe Odyssey belong to the seventh century; but we have seen that the\nevidence for this view is by no means satisfactory. Certainly by the\nmiddle of the seventh century, and probably somewhat earlier, we meet\nwith totally different types of poetry. In the first place we find a\nnumber of new metrical forms, elegiac, iambic and trochaic, not to\nspeak of the numerous varieties of lyric metre. In matter and in spirit\ntoo the difference is just as marked as it is in form. The new poets\nare primarily concerned with the affairs of their own day. Callinos and\nTyrtaios are inspired by national patriotism. Their fragments may be\ncompared with the poem on the battle of Brunanburh, though even this is\nnearer to the heroic spirit. Archilochos again is almost entirely taken\nup with his own experiences and passions. A good analogy for his case\nis to be found in the Icelandic adventurer Egill Skallagr\u00edmsson. In all\nrespects then the poetry of this age is as far removed as possible from\nthe heroic type of poetry.\n\nYet traces of an intermediate or transitional stage are not altogether\nwanting. From the fragments of the Hesiodic Catalogue and other works\nwhich are attributed to the close of the eighth and the early part\nof the seventh centuries it is clear that--apart from hymns--the old\nhexameter metre was retained for a time in a class of poetry which\nappears to have been largely genealogical in character. In matter\nalso, as well as in form, this class had certain elements in common\nwith Homeric poetry, since both were concerned with the far past. But\nin spirit its affinities were rather with the poetry of the following\nage; for its object seems clearly to have been the glorification of the\nstate.\n\nThese observations lead us to conclude that a sequence can be traced\nin the history of poetry, as in that of art. It is at least a natural\nhypothesis that the great development of original poetry in the age of\nCallinos and Archilochos was connected in some way with those political\nand social movements which so greatly affected the Greek world during\nthe eighth and seventh centuries--changing almost every kingdom into\na republic. Moreover the existence of the transitional (genealogical)\ntype of poetry which we have noted is altogether favourable to this\nidea; for the form of government which took the place of kingship\nwas at first that of a strictly limited aristocracy. But have we any\nground for believing that heroic poetry was the poetry of the age of\nkingship? How far is such an equation in accord with the chronological\ndata at our disposal? In Greece itself kingship generally seems to\nhave come to an end about the middle of the eighth century. In Aeolis\nhowever, with which we are primarily concerned, the change was in\nall probability somewhat later; for the Phrygian king Midas (Mita of\nMuski), who perished in the Cimmerian invasion about the beginning of\nthe seventh century, is said to have married a daughter of Agamemnon,\nking of Cyme. But few will deny that the great bulk of Homeric poetry\nwas in existence by this time. The equation therefore seems to be fully\njustified. Survivals and imitations may occur in later times, as in the\ncase of art; but, broadly speaking, it appears that heroic poetry is\nproperly the poetry of the age of kingship.\n\nWe must not assume forthwith however that it was the only type of\npoetry which existed during this age. Certain passages in Hesiod's\npoems (Theog. 80 ff., W. and D. 38 f.) render it clear that kingship\nin some form or other still existed when they were composed; yet they\ndiffer very greatly from the Homeric type. Our next object therefore\nmust be to try to ascertain the true provenance of Homeric poetry.\nWas it court poetry or popular poetry, or are we to trace its origin\nto conditions which cannot well be brought under either of these\ncategories?\n\nIt cannot seriously be contended, I think, that the Homeric poems\nare of popular origin. In the first place their length is scarcely\ncompatible with such a hypothesis[358]. Their metrical form also is\nclearly the product of a long artistic development; it is inconceivable\nthat popular poetry could be capable of creating anything so elaborate.\nAgain they are by no means in the nature of biographical sketches (cf.\np. 95); in spite of their great length the action in both cases extends\nover quite a brief period of time. Further, there is little or no\ndefinite evidence--certainly none which can be called conclusive--for\nthat confusion of different stories which characterises popular poetry.\nThe heroes who figure in the Homeric poems are scarcely the most\nfamous representatives of their states. Most of them are little known\nelsewhere. Popular poetry could hardly have failed to introduce into\nthe action such persons as Heracles, Theseus, Peirithoos, Minos, Iason\nor Adrastos. Then again we may note the presence of nearly all those\nfeatures which distinguish the heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples\n(cf. p. 82 f.). The characters brought before us in the Iliad are\nalmost invariably either princes or persons attached to the retinues of\nprinces, and themselves apparently of what we may call knightly rank.\nThe chief exception (Thersites) is described in a way which only proves\nthe rule. It is true that this principle is not so strictly observed\nin the latter part of the Odyssey. Several persons of humble rank\nare introduced here, though it is to be noted that the most prominent\nof them (Eumaios, the swineherd) is said to be of princely birth. In\nother respects however the Odyssey conforms to the rules of Teutonic\ncourt poetry just as much as the Iliad. Thus it is fond of describing\nin detail the movements of kings and queens in their palaces and the\nconventions observed in the reception of strangers. Again, persons of\nprincely rank are seldom spoken of with disrespect in either poem.\nDialogues must of course be excepted, and also references (especially\nin the Nekyia) to persons of the far past--precisely as in Teutonic\npoetry. But in general there is a noteworthy absence of any display\nof feeling against the opponents of the poet's heroes--as much in the\ncase of Penelope's suitors as in that of the Trojans. Perhaps the most\nstriking instance is the semi-apologetic account of Clytaimnestra's\nconduct given by Nestor (Od. III 263-272), a passage which may be\ncompared with the story of Offa's wife in Beowulf. We may note also\nthe surprisingly lenient treatment of Paris in the Iliad. Indeed the\ncharacters represented in the most unfavourable light are gods--a\nphenomenon for which we have analogies in Old Norse poetry. Lastly,\nwe must observe the strict avoidance of coarseness and of things not\nmentioned in polite society.\n\nBefore we proceed further it will be convenient to turn for a moment\nto Hesiod's poems. For these also early Teutonic literature presents\na number of fairly close parallels. In particular the proverbial\npart of the Works and Days has many analogies in gnomic poetry, both\nEnglish and Scandinavian. As an example we may cite the first and last\nportions of H\u00e1vam\u00e1l. Again the precepts on husbandry and the calendar\nresemble several Anglo-Saxon works both in prose and verse. For the\nTheogony the closest Teutonic parallel--and it is very close--is the\nprose Gylfaginning; but earlier poetical works, such as V\u00f6lusp\u00e1 and\nHyndluli\u00f3\u00f0, run on somewhat similar lines. There is evidence too that\nsubjects of the same kind were once popular in England[359]. Lastly,\nthe verses (22 ff.) which relate how the poet received his inspiration\nmay be compared with the story of Caedmon.\n\nNow if we compare the characteristics of Hesiodic and Homeric poetry\nwe cannot fail to notice that they present a very striking contrast in\nseveral respects, even apart from the absence of a common theme. In the\nfirst place Hesiod takes no pains to conceal his personality. Again,\nhis poems contain little in the way of detailed description, except\nwhere the occupations of a farmer's life are discussed. Thirdly, they\nshow no tendency to avoid indelicate subjects. Lastly, they betray no\nacquaintance with court life. Kings are occasionally mentioned, though\nnot by name, but all the references are to their public appearances, as\njudges or mediators. We may notice too that though in the Theogony (v.\n80 ff.) they are spoken of with respect, in the Works and Days (v. 38\nf.) the title is coupled with an opprobrious epithet (\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2). No\none can fail to observe that in nearly all these respects[360] Hesiod\nshows the characteristics which commonly distinguish popular poetry.\n\nBut we have to remember that in spite of all these differences Hesiod\nuses the same metrical form and to a large extent the same style of\nlanguage as the Homeric poems. There can be little doubt that priority\nlies with the latter; indeed Hesiod frequently betrays acquaintance\nwith Homeric poetry. But it must not be assumed that his themes were\nnew; they are far more primitive than anything of the heroic type. If\nHesiod was the founder of a new era in poetry we must conclude that his\ninnovation consisted in the application of the forms of heroic poetry\nto purposes for which they had not previously been used. The heroic\nhexameter is the only form of metre which can be traced back beyond the\nseventh century, and we can hardly doubt that it is the oldest form of\ncultivated Greek poetry. But less elaborate forms of verse--perhaps\nrude precursors of the iambic and lyric metres--must also have been in\npopular use for ages in ballads, songs and hymns. We may infer then\nthat what Hesiod did was to turn to popular use the form of poetry\nwhich represented the highest standard of art in his day.\n\nBut what were the conditions which produced this elaborate and highly\nartificial type of poetry? The characteristics of Homeric poetry\nenumerated above are conclusive evidence that it was not of popular\norigin. Some of them are extremely difficult to account for unless its\ntrue home was in the king's courts. It may be objected that Hesiod was\nfamiliar with Homeric poetry, though he knew nothing of court life.\nBut Hesiod probably belonged to the last days of the kingly period,\nwhen that institution was losing its power and popularity. It is only\nin accordance with what we might expect that in such an age court\npoets--in view of Theog. 94 f. we should perhaps say minstrels--would\nfrequently try to get a hearing from a wider circle. Hesiod's own\nactivity falls in with this explanation perfectly well. His popularity\nwas due to the fact that he preserved the artistic form of court\npoetry, while at the same time he discarded its conventions and turned\nto subjects which were more in accordance with the tastes and interests\nof his own class.\n\nApart from the courts it is difficult to see where conditions\nfavourable to the growth of Homeric poetry could have existed. Aeolis\nin the eighth century must have differed very greatly from the city\nstates of the sixth and fifth centuries. Hesiod himself belonged\nto a family which was possessed of some property. His father was a\nmerchant; but we can hardly suppose that this class was either numerous\nor wealthy, in a land which consisted essentially of agricultural\ncommunities. We shall hardly go astray, I think, in believing that the\nconditions here at the time of which we are speaking bore far more\nresemblance to those which prevailed in Teutonic kingdoms some twelve\nor thirteen centuries later than to those of cities like Miletos or\nAthens at their prime. There as here the wealth was probably to a large\nextent in the possession of the kings. Indeed from the story of Midas'\nrelations with Agamemnon of Cyme (cf. p. 227) we may perhaps infer that\nthe kings retained a certain amount of influence even in the latter\npart of the eighth century. On the other hand the name of this king\nmay certainly be taken as evidence that the courts were interested in\nheroic poetry[361].\n\nWe have now seen that Homeric poetry goes back to the age of\nkingship and that it is not of popular origin (Stage III), but in\nall probability a product of court life. Our next object must be\nto consider whether this poetry was a direct continuation of the\ncourt-minstrelsy of the Heroic Age (Stage I), represented by Demodocos\nand Phemios--in which case of course it will correspond to Stage II of\nour scheme--or whether it is rather a secondary outgrowth from popular\npoetry (Stage IV). The problem, it will be seen, is essentially one of\nstratification. If we may, in archaeological language, speak of the\nHomeric poems as a 'palace-structure'--it ought surely to be possible\nto determine whether traces of a 'village settlement' lie immediately\nbeneath it.\n\nIt has been pointed out above (p. 224 f.) that the Nibelungenlied\ncannot furnish any true analogy to the history of Homeric poetry. The\nother type of Stage IV which we have considered (p. 99 f.) is that of\nthe Edda poems. But I do not think that anyone will seriously expect\nto find a strict parallel here. In that case we should have to suppose\nthat heroic poetry was originally unknown to the Aeolians, whether in\nAsia or Thessaly. But the Thessalian element--including as it does such\nstriking conceptions as the location of the gods on Mount Olympos--is\ntoo deeply engrained in this class of poetry to render such a\nhypothesis probable. We shall see shortly that a better analogy for the\nhistory of the Edda poems is perhaps to be found in quite a different\nquarter.\n\nThe theory which obtains most currency at the present time is that\nHomeric poetry grew up in the Greek settlements on the Asiatic coast\non the basis of ballads derived from Thessaly--perhaps also from other\nparts of Greece. This theory does not exactly answer to our definition\nof Stage IV; but we may treat it under the same heading, as it likewise\ninvolves the development of heroic poetry out of popular poetry.\nAccording to any explanation of this kind we must of course assume that\nthe court-minstrelsy depicted in the poems is a reflection of court\nlife in the Asiatic settlements. This is conceivable enough in itself,\nprovided that the requisite conditions are carried back at least to\nthe ninth century. But is the theory probable? No one will suggest, I\nsuppose, that the wealth or culture of the Aeolic settlements during\nthe tenth and ninth centuries was superior to that of the Greek\nkingdoms in general towards the close of the Achaean period. Briefly\nstated then the current theory comes to this: the wealthier and more\ncultured period produced nothing but popular ballads, while the poorer\nand ruder period produced a most elaborate and magnificent court poetry.\n\nWe have seen that Homeric poetry possesses certain characteristics\nwhich are incompatible with the idea that it is itself of popular\norigin. But a closer inspection will show that some of these\ncharacteristics are almost as difficult to account for on the\nhypothesis that it was a recent outgrowth from popular poetry. In\nparticular this is true of their metrical form, if we are justified\nin believing that the Homeric type of verse presupposes a long\nartistic development. Again, the confusion of different stories which\ncharacterises popular poetry (Stage III) will not be removed in its\nmore cultivated successor (Stage IV); Dietrich von Bern (Theodric)\nremains by the side of Etzel (Attila) in the Nibelungenlied. The same\nremark too applies to those changes of character which popular poetry\nis apt to produce. In the Nibelungenlied Hagen remains as cruel and\nKriemhild as passionately vindictive as popular fancy had painted\nthem. The poets of a later age will not trouble themselves to save the\ncharacters of persons who lived long ago. We shall see shortly that\nthis is true of Greek poetry just as much as of German. But the Homeric\npoems--except perhaps in the Nekyia--will not supply us with examples.\n\nFinally, we must bear in mind those reminiscences of Mycenean--or\nrather 'sub-Mycenean'--splendour which the poems contain and their\nalmost invariable use of bronze as the material for weapons--not to\nmention the fact that the political and national boundaries which they\nrecord are totally different from those which existed in the ninth\ncentury. Will anyone seriously maintain that such traditions could be\npreserved through the medium of popular ballads alone? I confess that\nsuch a hypothesis is altogether incredible to me.\n\nNow let us take the alternative explanation, suggested by the\nAnglo-Saxon poems. It is generally agreed that the Aeolic settlements\nare older than the Ionic in Asia; but since even the former are ignored\nin the poems it is hardly probable that they came into existence\nuntil towards the close of the Achaean period. When the storms broke\nupon Greece crowds of refugees, not only from Thessaly but also from\nmany other parts of the country, fled to the new Aeolic settlements\nacross the Aegean. Among them, according to the suggested analogy,\nwere many court minstrels, of the type represented by Demodocos and\nPhemios, who brought with them not only a poetic technique matured\nby long experience but also a number of poems, of which the newest\nwould probably be the most in favour. This poetry was developed\nand expanded by the court minstrels of subsequent generations;\nbut the subject-matter became stereotyped and--precisely as in\nEngland--everything relating to the new settlements was completely\nignored. This is the conclusion to which all the evidence at our\ndisposal seems to me to point.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe must now turn for a moment to the Cyclic poems. And here it is to be\nremembered in the first place that our information is very defective,\nif not actually misleading. Herodotus (II 117) doubted Homer's\nauthorship of the Cypria on the ground that it contained a statement\nin direct contradiction with the Iliad, namely that Alexandros arrived\nat Troy with Helen on the third day after leaving Sparta, whereas it\nis stated in the Iliad (VI 290 ff.) that he wandered out of his course\n(to Sidon) when he brought her. But the epitome of the Cypria which has\ncome down to us states expressly that Alexandros did go to Sidon. Hence\nwe can only conclude that its trustworthiness as an authority for the\ncontents of the poem is open to serious doubt.\n\nTaking the evidence as it stands we can detect at once an important\ndifference between the Cypria and the Nostoi on the one hand and the\nIliad and the Odyssey on the other. In the two former poems the action\nseems to have been spread over a considerable number of years, while\nin the latter it was limited to a few days or weeks. Again, as far as\nwe can judge, the two former treated a much larger number of events,\nin proportion to their length--events too which were not so closely\nconnected with one another. Indeed they seem to have been almost in\nthe nature of chronicles. These however are characteristics of popular\nrather than court poetry.\n\nThe story of the Cypria, as we know it, bears a curious resemblance\nto the Edda trilogy Reginsm\u00e1l--F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l--Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l (cf. p. 13).\nBoth the Cyclic poem and the trilogy served as introductions to famous\nstories. Both stories were essentially concerned with the adventures\nand passions of human beings; but in both cases the introduction begins\nwith the gods, and the origin of the tragic events which follow is\ntraced ultimately to irresponsible, not to say mischievous, conduct\non the part of certain deities. There can be no doubt that the whole\ntheme of the Northern poems is a late addition to the story of Sigur\u00f0r,\nand that the poems themselves were composed as an introduction to this\nstory. Is it not possible that the Cypria was of somewhat similar\norigin? The latter part of the poem, if we are to trust the epitome,\ncontained some extraordinary features. The story of Odysseus' pretended\nmadness and how he was eventually compelled to join the expedition is\ndifficult to reconcile with the general tone of Homeric poetry. Again,\nthe army is represented as assembling twice at Aulis and twice starting\nfor Troy. The account of the first of these incidents agrees with what\nis stated in the Iliad (II 303 ff.), while the second contains the\nstory of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, according to the version in which\nshe was rescued by Artemis. On the other hand it is worth bearing in\nmind that the poem is said to have ended with a catalogue of the Trojan\nallies, presumably the same list which we find in the Iliad (II 816\nff., or perhaps 840 ff.)--and this can hardly be regarded as a late\ncomposition.\n\nThe chief characteristic of the Nostoi seems to have been absence of\nunity. Beginning with the departure of the Achaeans from Troy, it\nnarrated the adventures which befell various heroes on their return.\nThese formed, as far as we can tell, a number of quite distinct\nstories, unconnected with one another except at the beginning. If we\nmay judge from the number of books contained in the poem--five as\nagainst eleven in the Cypria--these stories must have been very short,\nand consequently it is perhaps questionable whether we are justified\nin regarding the Nostoi as an epic at all, except in the same sense\nin which that term is applied to Hesiodic poetry. Indeed it seems to\nhave had an affinity with the latter in more than one respect; for\nthe stories of the various heroes were probably not uninfluenced by\ngenealogical interests. In the same light we may perhaps regard the\nfact that one scene is laid in an Ionic city (Colophon). All these\nfeatures suggest that the poem came into existence at a fairly late\nperiod. If the Cypria was designed as an introduction to the story\nof the siege of Troy there can be little doubt that the Nostoi was\ncomposed as an epilogue to the same. On the other hand many scholars\nhold that it has been used by the Odyssey. But it is at least\nquestionable whether the references in question do not come from the\nsources of the poem rather than the work itself[362].\n\nThe other poems of the Trojan series--the Aithiopis, Little Iliad and\nIliu Persis--resembled the Cypria and the Nostoi in the fact that\nthey dealt with a considerable number of separate episodes[363]. But\nthe resemblance was perhaps only superficial; for these episodes were\napparently represented as following one another in regular sequence. If\nwe had only a fragmentary epitome of the Iliad we might gather from it\nmuch the same impression. All these poems were on a small scale, eleven\nbooks in all; but, unlike the Cypria and the Nostoi, the action covered\nonly a short interval of time. Several incidents which they related\nare referred to or even told at length in the Odyssey; but we have not\nsufficient information to enable us to determine whether the references\nare taken from the poems themselves. The chief argument to the contrary\nis that these poems seem to have contained certain 'post-Homeric'\nfeatures, notably the rite of purification from bloodshed, in the\nAithiopis, and the sacrifice of a virgin (Polyxene), in the Iliu\nPersis. The former case is especially significant, because--in\nstriking contrast with the spirit of later Greek poetry--the ideas of\npollution and purification seem to be entirely ignored in the Iliad and\nOdyssey[364].\n\nThese so-called post-Homeric features are of course really\ncharacteristics of a more primitive religion, and it would be better to\ndescribe them as 'non-Homeric' or 'non-heroic.' But the fact that such\npractices are ignored in the Iliad and Odyssey, while later poets had\na special affection for them, renders it probable that their presence\nin the Cyclic poems is due to popular influence. Are we then justified\nin assigning these poems to Stage IV of our scheme? That is a question\nwhich, considering the evidence at our disposal, I feel a good deal of\nhesitation in answering. Certainly they cannot have differed from the\nIliad and Odyssey in anything like the same degree that the medieval\nGerman poems or even the heroic poems of the Edda differ from Beowulf.\nThey may actually have incorporated a good deal of ancient matter. On\nthe whole the balance of probability seems to me to incline towards the\nview that the Cyclic poems are derived ultimately from the same body of\nearly heroic court poetry upon which the Iliad and Odyssey themselves\nare based; but that their composition took place in later times, when\nthe 'Homeric' standard was no longer preserved in its purity.\n\nWhatever may be the case with the Cyclic poems there are other poetic\nworks which may be assigned to Stage IV without hesitation. For our\npurpose it will perhaps be best to take an illustration from the drama;\nfor, though such works are only secondary authorities, they are on the\nwhole less open to objection than lost poems on which our information\nmay be misleading. A good example is furnished by Aeschylus' Oresteia,\na series of plays which deals with a subject treated at some length in\nthe Odyssey. The chief incidents are the murder of Agamemnon by his\nwife Clytaimnestra, the vengeance taken upon her by her son Orestes,\nthe persecution of the matricide by the Erinyes, his purification\nby Apollo, and his trial by Athene and the citizens of Athens. In\nthe Odyssey the first of these incidents, the murder, is ascribed\nto Aigisthos, Clytaimnestra's paramour. As regards the second we\nhave nothing but a passing reference to Clytaimnestra's funeral. The\nother incidents are not mentioned at all. Again, in Aeschylus' work\nprominence is given to an attempt on Clytaimnestra's part to placate\nthe dead Agamemnon, to an invocation of him for vengeance by his\nchildren, and to the instigation of the Erinyes by Clytaimnestra's\nghost. These features too are unknown in the Odyssey; indeed they are\ndirectly opposed to all that we know of Homeric religion. Then again\nwe find frequent and detailed allusions to tragic events which had\noccurred previously in the history of Agamemnon's family--especially\nthe 'banquet of Thyestes' and the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. On these\nmatters too both the Iliad and the Odyssey are completely silent. Yet\nin the latter case this silence cannot be due to accident. Either the\npoets were ignorant of the story, or they deliberately suppressed it.\n\nFew modern readers can fail to appreciate the Oresteia as an almost\nunrivalled masterpiece of poetic art, in spite of the fact that the\nideas with which it is permeated are largely strange and unreal to us.\nBut what would have been the effect if such a work had been recited at\none of those courts in which Homeric poetry was patronised in early\ntimes? There can scarcely be any doubt, I think, that the recitation\nwould not have been tolerated. To such an audience the poet's religious\nconceptions would have been intelligible enough, but only as products\nof a degraded and baneful superstition, while his skilful presentation\nof various painful incidents in the history of a royal house--the most\ndistinguished in Greece--would have appeared not merely an offence\nagainst good manners but rather a wanton insult to the kingly class in\ngeneral.\n\nThe social conditions and the ethical standard of Aeschylus' time\ndiffered no doubt very greatly from those of the Homeric age. This is a\nsubject with which we shall have to deal later. It should be observed\nhowever that nearly all the special features which characterise\nAeschylus' treatment of this story can be paralleled from Scandinavian\nworks which we may assign to Stage IV. A very close analogy for the\n'banquet of Thyestes' is furnished by the story of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan, Atli and\ntheir children; and it is to be remembered that, though Atli at least\nwas a historical character, this story cannot possibly have any\nfoundation in fact. The persecution of Orestes by the Erinyes may\nbe compared with Saxo's story (p. 246) of the curse inflicted upon\nHaldanus[365], likewise as a result of the shedding of 'kindred blood.'\nWith the sacrifice of Iphigeneia we may compare that of Vikarr in\nGautreks Saga (cap. 7), which was also brought about by the prevalence\nof contrary winds. Invocation of the dead is not uncommon in such\nworks. On the other hand it is extremely doubtful whether any of those\nfeatures would have been permissible in early heroic poetry. They do\nnot occur in the extant poems of Stage II.\n\nThere is sufficient evidence that most of the characteristic features\nof Aeschylus' story were not invented by him, though as to his sources\nour information is not very satisfactory. The lost Oresteia of\nStesichoros was doubtless one of his chief authorities, and there is\nsome reason for believing that the version given in this work differed\nfrom the Homeric account quite as much as that of Aeschylus. Beyond\nStesichoros we may perhaps think of the Cyclic poems, especially the\nNostoi; but it is very doubtful if they would have furnished such a\nvery markedly divergent form of the story. Stesichoros himself is said\nto have treated his authorities with great freedom. But some of the\nnon-Homeric features can hardly be due to deliberate alteration. We\nmay notice especially the differences in the personal relations of\nAgamemnon's family. In the Iliad he is the son of Atreus; Stesichoros\nand others call him son of Pleisthenes. In the Iliad he has three\ndaughters, Laodice, Chrysothemis and Iphianassa; Aeschylus gives him\ntwo, Electra and Iphigeneia, the latter of whom seems to have figured\nalso in the Cypria[366]. There is also a good deal of discrepancy in\nregard to the scene of the events. In the Iliad and Odyssey Agamemnon\nbelongs to Mycenae; in Aeschylus' account this place is forgotten\nand the story transferred to Argos, while Pindar, apparently also\nStesichoros and Simonides[367], placed it at Amyclai (close to Sparta).\nNow these are just the kind of corruptions and discrepancies which\ncharacterise popular poetry everywhere. Taken together with the other\nnon-Homeric features discussed above they seem to me to afford ground\nfor suspecting that Stesichoros and his followers drew upon a popular\nand perhaps Doric or Peloponnesian version of the story[368] which was\nindependent of Homeric poetry. Their work then would be similar in more\nthan one respect to that of those Norse poets who rehabilitated the\nold story of Sigur\u00f0r and Gu\u00f0r\u00fan after the (strophic) type of their own\nnational poetry.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe course of our discussion has led us to conclude that the Homeric\npoems are products of court poetry or minstrelsy in direct continuation\nof that type of minstrelsy which we considered at the beginning of the\nchapter. As yet however we have expressed no definite opinion as to the\nlength of time involved in their development, although we have noticed\nthat the evidence commonly adduced in favour of a long interval between\nthe earliest and latest portions of the poems is highly unsatisfactory.\nIt must be admitted that beyond a certain point the evidence at\nour disposal does not admit of anything more than an estimation of\nprobability.\n\nWe have seen that there is good reason for believing that the history\nof heroic poetry in Aeolis and in England proceeded on similar lines\nin several respects, and also that the chief monument of English\nheroic poetry was probably composed within not much more than a\ncentury after certain events which it records. Now in any comparison\nbetween English and Greek heroic poetry we must of course leave out\nof account the frequent Christian allusions which occur in the former\n(cf. p. 47 ff.); for there is no reason whatever for supposing that\nany change comparable with the introduction of Christianity came over\nthe Greek world during the times which saw the development of Homeric\npoetry. Apart from this element anachronisms are not very numerous or\nmarked; but they do occur. Thus the road which leads to the Danish\nking's dwelling is described as a Roman road (_straet_), paved with\nstone (Beow. 320), while the members of the same king's court (_ib._\n768) are termed 'inhabitants of a chester' (_ceasterbuendum_). Such\ncases may be compared with the Homeric inconsistencies discussed in\nthe last chapter--e.g. perhaps the occasional use of iron for weapons.\nIt can hardly be maintained, I think, that the latter are of greater\nsignificance than the anachronisms in English heroic poetry.\n\nThis absence of striking anachronisms decidedly favours the view that\nthe period involved in the development of Homeric poetry was not very\nlong. Against such a conclusion it may of course be urged that there is\na constantly recurring phrase (\u03bf\u1f37\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9) which contrasts\nthe 'men of the present day,' i.e. the men of the poet's own time, with\nthe heroes of the siege of Troy, emphasizing the superior strength\nof the latter. But it is quite unnecessary to suppose that a long\ninterval of time is intended here. The old Nestor uses almost the same\nexpression in Il. I 272 (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f33 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9), when he\ncompares the men among whom he was then living with those he had known\nin his youth. Again, in Od. VIII 122 f., Odysseus contrasts the 'men of\nthe present day' (\u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f76) with the 'men of\nold' (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd); but by the latter phrase he means persons\nbelonging to the generation next above his own (Heracles and Eurytos).\nThe same usage occurs elsewhere. Thus in Il. IX 524 Phoinix speaks of\nthe 'glories of those heroes that were of old' (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03c1\u03ce\u03c9\u03bd); but the story which he proceeds to relate is of\nMeleagros, the uncle of Diomedes. Indeed persons of more than two\ngenerations back are seldom mentioned in the Homeric poems.\n\nAn expression very similar to the one last quoted is used by Hesiod\n(Theog. 99 ff.) when he speaks of the minstrel as singing the \"glories\nof men of old and the blessed gods who hold Olympos[369].\" Here of\ncourse the reference is not to persons of the last generation, but to\nthe heroes of Homeric poetry. In the Works and Days, vv. 156 ff., 174\nff., the Heroic Age is distinguished with all possible clearness from\nthe period in which the poet himself lived. It is not to be overlooked\nthat antiquarian interest forms a prominent feature in all Hesiodic\npoetry. Even in the Works and Days it is obvious enough, although\nsuch topics have little in common with the main theme of the poem. In\nthe Catalogue we meet with such characters as Hellen and Doros, who\nowe their existence to speculations in tribal origins. The poetry of\nthe following period seems to have been essentially of a genealogical\ncharacter.\n\nFor such antiquarian interest the Homeric poems furnish no evidence,\nexcept perhaps in the Nekyia. Not only are the genealogies of the\nheroes seldom carried back more than two generations, but--what is more\nimportant--there is scarcely any reference to their descendants, beyond\nthe first generation. Again, Achilles is said to have been singing the\n'glories of heroes' (\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd) when he received the embassy (Il.\nIX 189); but it is not stated that these were heroes of former times.\nThe songs of Demodocos and Phemios deal with the adventures of the\nAchaeans at Troy and on their return home. That this is no accident is\nshown by Od. I 351 f., where Telemachos pleads in excuse for Phemios\nthat \"men always prize that song the most which rings newest in their\nears.\" No sentiment could well be more foreign to the tone of Hesiodic\nor post-Hesiodic poetry than this. If any poet of that school had\ninterested himself in contemporary history our knowledge of the eighth\ncentury would not be the blank which unfortunately it is. Clearly the\nonly heroic poetry known to them was the \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. That\nmeans very much the same thing as Einhard's _ueterum regum actus et\nbella_ or the _antiquorum actus regumque certamina_ sung by Bernlef\n(cf. pp. 80, 87). At such a time if anyone was composing a heroic poem\nit would probably have seemed natural enough to use the formulae with\nwhich several of the Edda poems begin: \"It was long ago,\" or \"It was in\nearly times that,\" etc. On the other hand Telemachos' remark would be\nperfectly appropriate in the earlier stages of Teutonic poetry. We have\nseen (p. 85) that in Beowulf one of the Danish king's knights begins to\ncompose a poem on the hero's adventure within a few hours of the event.\nProcopius' account of Hermegisklos and Radiger (p. 97 ff.) must also be\nborne in mind, although this story may not have attained the form of an\nepic poem.\n\nThe conclusion then to which the Teutonic evidence leads us is that at\nall events the type of narrative was fixed very early. The growth of\nthe Homeric poems may or may not have taken longer than that of their\nTeutonic counterparts. Records of the eighth century B.C. speak of\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd; records of the eighth century A.D. speak of\n_antiquorum actus_. But in neither case do the poems themselves give\nexpression to a consciousness of the antiquity of the events which they\nrelate.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[356] In Od. IV 17 ff. two acrobats give a performance while Menelaos'\nminstrel is singing, and in VIII 261 ff. Demodocos' song on the love\nof Ares and Aphrodite is both accompanied and followed by dancing.\nMore usually however the minstrel's song and music is the only form of\nentertainment.\n\n[357]\n\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b7\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b9\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u00b7\n \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u1f72 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4' \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f45\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u039c\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03b4\u03ae.\n\n[358] Cf. Breal, _Pour mieux conna\u00eetre Homer_, p. 24: \"Attribuer \u00e0 la\npoesie populaire une composition en vingt-quatre chants, quelle folie!\"\nBut one must bear in mind the length sometimes attained by Bosnian\npoems (cf. p. 101). I may remark here that this work--like many others\ndealing with the Homeric poems--frequently uses arguments which would\nnot have been put forward if attention had been paid to the heroic\npoetry of other European peoples.\n\n[359] Cf. especially a letter from Daniel, bishop of Winchester, to\nSt Boniface, written about the year 720 (Jaff\u00e9, _Bibliotheca Rerum\nGermanicarum_, III 71 ff.).\n\n[360] The suppression of the poet's personality is not a mark of heroic\npoetry as such, but of epic or narrative heroic poetry.\n\n[361] Unfortunately there seems to be hardly any material which might\nenable us to estimate the popularity of heroic names in Greece in\nearly times (cf. pp. 42 ff., 64 ff.). Note however may be taken of the\nexistence of a prince named Hector in Chios, perhaps shortly after the\ntime of Agamemnon of Cyme.\n\n[362] Athenaeus (281 b, 395 d) mentions a poem called \u039a\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd,\nof which nothing seems to be known elsewhere. As it contained at least\nthree books it can hardly have formed part of the Nostoi.\n\n[363] Cf. Aristotle, _Poet._, XXIII 4, where it is stated that the\nIliad and Odyssey provide material for only one or two tragedies each,\nthe Cypria for many and the Little Iliad for eight.\n\n[364] The 'purification' of the house of Odysseus (Od. XXII 437 ff.) is\nof an essentially different character: cf. Harrison, _Prolegomena to\nthe Study of Greek Religion_, p. 24 f.\n\n[365] This incident may also be compared with a passage in the Iliad\n(IX 453 ff.). Phoinix' speech (perhaps designedly) shows a nearer\napproximation to this type of religion (cf. also v. 568 ff.) than any\nother part of the Homeric poems.\n\n[366] The version of the sacrifice given in the Cypria (cf. p. 235) is\nprobably to be regarded as later than the other, although it occurred\nin what was doubtless a much earlier poem.\n\n[367] Cf. Pindar, _Pyth._ XI 32; Stesichoros (Bergk), fragm. 39.\n\n[368] The Spartans possessed a tomb of Agamemnon at Amyclai (cf.\nPausanias, III 19. 6). Indeed, from Herodotus, VII 159, it would seem\nthat they claimed him as one of their own kings as far back as the time\nof Xerxes. It has been suggested that a similar version of the story\nis implied in Od. IV 514 f.; but the inference is doubtful. Aigisthos\nrules Mycenae (after Agamemnon's death in III 305.)\n\n[369]\n\n \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03ba\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03ca \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u1ff7\n \u1f04\u03b6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2\n \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f4c\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE VI. THE TROJAN CATALOGUE.\n\n\nIn the last chapter we have endeavoured to estimate in general terms\nthe position of the Homeric poems relatively to the poetry of the\nHeroic Age itself on the one hand and to Hesiod and genealogical poetry\non the other. I have avoided entering into details in regard to the\nrelationship between the extant poems and the lost Cyclic poems because\nI did not wish to load the discussion with matter which, owing to the\nfragmentary nature of the evidence, must largely be of a hypothetical\ncharacter. At the same time I am inclined to think that the Trojan\nCatalogue (Il. II 816 ff.) does contain some indications which may\npermit the date of its composition to be determined with a fair amount\nof probability.\n\nAccording to Proclus' Chrestomathy[370] the Cypria contained\n(apparently at the end) a \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\nand it is commonly believed[371] that this is the list which has\nbeen incorporated in our text of the Iliad. Proclus' words, taken\nliterally, would seem to indicate that the list did not include the\nTrojans themselves. The 'allies' proper begin perhaps at v. 840, and\nconsequently it has been held that vv. 816-839 are a later addition.\nConsidering the nature of the evidence, this view can scarcely be\nregarded as beyond question. But there certainly are noticeable\ndifferences between the first and second portions of the list, apart\nfrom the fact that the former contains no national names except \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2\nand \u0394\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. The first part is much more dependent on the Iliad than\nis the second. Thus all the personal names which occur in it are to\nbe found in other parts of the poem, while several passages (eight\nverses[372] out of the twenty-four) have been borrowed practically\nverbatim. On the other hand, out of the twenty-five persons mentioned\nin the second part of the list eleven are not met with elsewhere in the\nIliad, while four of the others are not elsewhere associated with the\nnations (Mysians, Phrygians and Meiones) to which they belong here.\nAgain, though several verses show acquaintance with other passages in\nthe Iliad, there is apparently no single verse which has been borrowed\nentire. The most striking fact however is that in two cases we have\nreferences to heroes who are said to have been slain by Achilles in\nthe river. Neither of these persons is mentioned in the account of the\nriver fight given in the Iliad. In explanation of this it has been\nsuggested that another scene of this kind occurred in the Aithiopis;\nbut we have no evidence to this effect, and it is surely at least as\nprobable that they are derived from a different version of the river\nfight described in the Iliad.\n\nIn both parts of the list we meet with a considerable number of\ngeographical names--of cities, rivers and mountains--many of which\n(five in the first part and twelve in the second) do not occur\nelsewhere in the Iliad. The majority of the names mentioned belong to\nthe immediate neighbourhood of the coast, and it is a fact worth noting\nthat these almost all fall into three distinct groups--in Paphlagonia,\nthe Troad and Caria respectively. There is a great gap covering\napparently the whole of the Bithynian coast and another embracing the\ncoast of the Aegean from Troy itself to Mycale. In explanation of this\nfact it has been suggested[373] that the names in the coast-districts\nare derived from an early poem or poems on the voyage of the Argo. This\nhypothesis might certainly account for the mention of the Paphlagonian\nnames in v. 852 ff. But they are the only names in the second part of\nthe list for which it gives any explanation; for the suggestion that\nthe references to the Carian localities in v. 868 f. are connected\nin any way with the story of the Argo can hardly be taken seriously.\nHence, if we are to trust the hypothesis in any form, it is more\nprobable that v. 853 ff. are a subsequent addition to the list. But\neven in the first part the evidence in its favour is of the most\nslender description[374]. Of the thirteen place-names which occur\nin this section eight are found elsewhere in the Iliad; of the rest\nonly two apparently are mentioned in the accounts of the voyage of\nthe Argo which have come down to us. What is more important however\nis that these accounts do mention a considerable number of Bithynian\nlocalities[375], both on the coast of the Sea of Marmara and on that\nof the Black Sea, as well as several peoples who do not appear in\nthe Catalogue. We must conclude then that this hypothesis in no way\naccounts for the peculiarities of the Catalogue.\n\nThe true explanation is not far to seek. It was well known to the\nancients that the Bithynians were an intrusive Thracian people who\nhad crossed over from Europe. Again, the Aegean coast, at all events\nfrom the Gulf of Adramyttion southwards[376], was covered with Aeolic\nand Ionic settlements. Greek tradition unanimously held that these\nsettlements were planted subsequently to the Trojan War, and we have\nno reason for supposing that the author of the Catalogue thought\ndifferently. At the same time we may infer from his silence that he did\nnot claim to know what peoples had occupied these regions previously.\nOn the other hand he did claim such knowledge of the previous\noccupants not only of the Troad but also of the Carian coast.\n\nThis fact surely furnishes the means of dating the composition of the\nCatalogue with a fair amount of probability. It is generally agreed\nthat the Ionic settlements were later than the Aeolic; but probably\nno one will contend that the Greek occupation of Miletos and Mycale\nbegan appreciably later than the end of the tenth century. It is not\nnecessary of course to suppose that these places were still in Carian\nhands when the Catalogue was composed. But at the same time the memory\nof their former possessors is not likely to have been perpetuated in\nan incidental reference like this much more than a century after they\nbecame Greek settlements. The more northern part of the list contains\nat all events nothing incompatible with the view that it was drawn\nup in the first half of the eighth century. The excavations in the\nTroad have certainly brought to light the fact that that district was\noverrun by barbarians. But there is nothing to show that this took\nplace at the time of the Bithynian invasion, whether the two movements\nwere connected in any way or not. The evidence on the whole seems to\nindicate that the barbarian occupation occurred not very long before\nthe foundation of the Ionic colonies on the Hellespont. There is\nnothing very remarkable in the fact that the places mentioned in the\nCatalogue lie chiefly on the coast; for such places would naturally be\nthe most familiar to the Asiatic Greeks, who must have been a seafaring\npeople to some extent from the beginning.\n\nNow in other parts of the Iliad we find mention of several peoples\nwhich apparently occupied the districts left blank in the Catalogue.\nThus in X 429, XX 329 we hear of the Caucones, who seem to have\nbelonged to Bithynia[377]. In XXI 86 f., VI 396 f. (cf. II 691, etc.)\nwe meet with peoples called Leleges and Cilices, the positions of which\nare quite definitely stated. The former are said to have dwelt in the\nvalley of the Satnioeis, in the south of the Troad, the latter somewhat\nfurther to the east, about the Gulf of Adramyttion. Again, in Od. XI\n519 ff. we hear of a certain Eurypylos the son of Telephos, chief of\nthe Ceteioi. Telephos and his son figured in the Cypria and the Little\nIliad; and Greek tradition placed their home (Teuthrania) in the region\nbetween the Gulf of Adramyttion and the Hermos. The name \u039a\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 has\nbeen connected with that of the Hittites (Kheta); but without going\ninto this question we may probably follow Strabo (XIII 1. 70) in\ntracing a reminiscence of them in the name of a stream called Ceteios,\na tributary of the Caicos. The Catalogue contains no reference to any\nof these peoples, presumably because their names were not familiar\nto the author. In later times we hear no more of the Ceteioi, while\nCilices are found only in Cilicia. The Leleges indeed are mentioned\nfrequently and on both sides of the Aegean, but only as a people of the\npast.\n\nIt is an easy and popular method of interpretation to discredit\nevidence for which no obvious explanation is forthcoming; and following\nthis method many scholars have regarded the names under discussion as\nphantoms. The point against which adverse criticism has chiefly been\ndirected is the location of the Cilices in the Gulf of Adramyttion.\nIt is to be remembered however that we have no evidence earlier than\nthe seventh century for the presence of a people called Cilices in\nthe land which ultimately bore their name. In the eighth century this\npeople apparently dwelt to the north of the Taurus. In earlier times\nwe hear of them, so far as I am aware, only in the 'Poem of Pentaur,'\na work which celebrates the battle fought at Kadesh early in the\nthirteenth century, between Rameses II and the Hittites. It is there\nstated that the \"chief of Kheta had come, having gathered together all\ncountries from the ends of the sea to the land of Kheta, which came\nentire[378].\" In addition to a number of Syrian names which occur in\nthe accounts of earlier wars the poem contains a group of new names\nof peoples, consisting of _Pidasa_, _Dardenui_, _Masa_, _Kalakisha_\nand _Luka_, with two others[379]. The last two of these names are\nalmost universally identified with the Cilices and Lycians, and the\nfirst is usually connected with the name \u03a0\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03a0\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1, while many\nscholars accept the identification of the second and third with the\nDardanoi and Mysians respectively. If the names _Pidasa_ and \u03a0\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2\nare connected we are brought to the Aegean, where we find both Pedasos\non the Satnioeis and Pedasa[380] in Caria. Evidence to the same effect\nis furnished by the procession of ten warriors depicted on one of the\nmonuments[381]. Of these five are of the Hittite type and two Semitic;\nbut the other three are of Aegean physiognomy and wear different\nvarieties of that feather head-dress which is known in Crete from much\nearlier times[382]. When we find that this earliest reference to the\nCilices associates them with a group of peoples[383], of whom some\nclearly belong to the west of Asia Minor, and some quite probably to\nthe north-west corner of the peninsula, it must be admitted that we\nhave no valid ground for discrediting the evidence of the Iliad as to\ntheir presence around the Gulf of Adramyttion.\n\nOn the other hand it must not be overlooked that later authorities\nknow nothing of Cilices in this region; neither do they mention Leleges\nin the south of the Troad or Ceteioi anywhere. If these peoples had\nsurvived the Aeolic invasion it is difficult to believe that they\ncould have perished subsequently without leaving some trace of their\nexistence in Greek tradition. The Pelasgoi of Larissa in the valley of\nthe Hermos[384] appear to have been remembered in tradition, although\ntheir territories were occupied by the Aeolians--probably at quite an\nearly date. The presumption then is that the other peoples had already\nbeen destroyed by Greek raids--as is stated in the Iliad--or else that\nthey had been expelled or absorbed by the surrounding nations before\nthe Greek colonies were fully established. In either case we shall have\nto carry back the poetic traditions relating to them practically to the\nbeginning of the first millennium.\n\nWe have seen that it is difficult to date the composition of the Trojan\nCatalogue--at all events the latter part of it--after about the middle\nof the eighth century. I am not aware of any valid reason for denying\nthat the Cypria as a whole may have been composed about this time or\nfor supposing that the Catalogue ever existed independently. It is\nin the preceding period--presumably between the eleventh and eighth\ncenturies--that we must place the composition of the Iliad, though\nits form may not have been finally settled when the Cypria came into\nexistence. Any more definite conclusion is rendered difficult by the\nunsatisfactory nature of our information regarding the Cypria. But\nthe general impression conveyed by the epitome is that an appreciable\nportion of the poem was derived from incidental references in the\nIliad, and that as a whole it possessed to a considerable degree the\ncharacteristics of popular poetry. If this impression is correct we\nmust conclude that heroic court-poetry was in its decadence when the\nCypria was composed; and consequently we shall do well to place the\nflourishing period, which produced the great epics, at least a century\nearlier.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[370] Cf. Kinkel, _Epicorum Graec. Fragmenta_, p. 20.\n\n[371] See the Addenda.\n\n[372] v. 822 f. from XII 99 f., vv. 831-4 from XI 329-332, v. 838 f.\nfrom XII 96 f. The borrowing of vv. 831-4 can hardly be ascribed to the\nsame man who took Amphios (the son of Selagos) from V 612. Ignorance\nof the contents of the poem such as we find here is very rare; its\noccurrence therefore in what is probably a very late addition to the\ntext deserves to be noticed.\n\n[373] Cf. Niese, _Der homerische Schiffskatalog_, p. 53 ff.\n\n[374] The argument that Abydos and Sestos cannot have been connected\nexcept in a \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (cf. Niese, _op. cit._ p. 54) is one which will\nappeal probably to no student of early Teutonic history.\n\n[375] Cf. Apollon. Rhod. I 1164 ff., II 649 ff., 720 ff., 901 ff., etc.\n\n[376] It is held that the Aeolic settlements in the south of the Troad\nwere established at quite a late period, probably in the seventh\ncentury. But we are not justified in assuming that no such settlements\nexisted previously. It is highly probable that the whole of this\ndistrict was devastated by the barbarians whose remains have been found\nat Troy (cf. p. 295, note).\n\n[377] Cf. especially Strabo XII 3. 5.\n\n[378] Cf. Breasted, _Ancient Records, Egypt_, III p. 138.\n\n[379] One of these names has been variously read as _Maunna_ or\n_Ariunna_ (_Arwena_) and identified with the \u039c\u1fc4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of the\nIliad, as well as with Oroanda and other places. The other, _Keshkesh_,\nseems to bear the same relationship to the cuneiform _Kasku_ which the\nEg. _Kalakisha_ (_Kelekesh_ in Breasted's orthography) bears to the\ncuneiform _Hilakku_ (beside _Hilak_). If _-ku_ is a suffix _Kasku_ may\npossibly be connected with \u039a\u1fb6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 (which seems to represent an earlier\n_Ka(s)-ar-_).\n\n[380] Perhaps also called Pedasos (cf. Herod, V 121). According to\nStrabo (XIII 1. 59) this place also belonged to the Leleges who, he\nsays, once possessed a considerable part of Caria and Pisidia.\n\n[381] Reproduced in W. Max M\u00fcller's _Asien u. Europa_, p. 361.\n\n[382] Cf. p. 190, note 2.\n\n[383] There is no question here of a national migration on the part of\nthese peoples. They were mercenaries hired by the Hittite king, who\n\"left not silver nor gold in his land (but) he plundered it of all his\npossessions and gave to every country, in order to bring them with him\nto battle.\" (Cf. Breasted, _op. cit._, pp. 129, note, 138.)\n\n[384] Cf. Strabo XIII 3. 3 f. I see no reason for doubting the\nexistence of traditions relating to the presence of Pelasgoi in this\nregion. The identification of Larissa Phriconis with the Larissa of the\nIliad (II 841, XVII 301) seems to be at least as likely as any of the\nothers which have been proposed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nSUPERNATURAL ELEMENTS IN THE HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n\nIn Chapter VI we saw that the heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples\nwas very largely affected by folk-tales; that supernatural beings were\nfrequently introduced, while ordinary human beings or animals were\ncredited with supernatural properties--in short that the distinction\nbetween natural and supernatural was not clearly drawn. We saw further\nthat these features were by no means confined to the later stages of\nheroic poetry--that on the contrary some of them were prominent even\nin the Anglo-Saxon poems, while the others appeared to be of equal\nantiquity.\n\nThe same phenomena appear in Greek heroic poetry. Mythical beings and\nfeatures obviously derived from folk-tales figure quite as frequently\nas in the Teutonic poems. Their presence is often regarded as a proof\nthat the stories into which they enter and the persons with whom they\nare brought into contact are themselves products of myth or fiction.\nThis is a question with which we shall have to deal in the following\nchapters. For the present it will be sufficient to quote what may be\nregarded as a typical expression of the attitude of more cautious\nscholars towards the problem of the story of Troy[385]: \"It is\nfantastic to treat the siege of Troy as merely a solar myth--to explain\nthe abduction of Helen by Paris as the extinction of the sunlight in\nthe West, and Troy as the region of the dawn beset and possessed by the\nsunrise. It is equally fantastic, and more illogical, to follow the\nrationalising method--to deduct the supernatural element, and claim\nthe whole residuum as historical fact. Homer says that Achilles slew\nHector with the aid of Athene. We are not entitled to omit Athene, and\nstill to affirm that Achilles slew Hector.\"\n\nIt may be observed that the gods are introduced in the Homeric poems in\nmany different ways. The incident just cited--where Athene takes the\nform of Deiphobos (Il. XXII 226 ff.)--belongs to one of the commonest\ntypes, and one which requires comparatively little imagination, if we\nare prepared to grant the existence of a belief that the gods were\ncapable of disguising themselves in human form. Sometimes again deities\nrender themselves visible only to certain individuals out of a crowd,\nas in Il. I 194 ff., where Athene intervenes in order to stay Achilles\nfrom drawing his sword upon Agamemnon. Another type is the disguise of\ngods as birds, as when we find Athene and Apollo sitting upon an oak in\nthe form of vultures, before the combat of Hector and Aias (_ib._ VII\n58 ff.). On other occasions birds are sent by a god as a sign of his\nfavour or protection, as in Il. XXIV 315 ff. and many other passages.\nSomewhat akin to this type is the dream sent by Zeus to Agamemnon in\nIl. II 5 ff.\n\nIt has been remarked that in such cases as these a sceptical person\nmight have accounted for everything that passed without reference to\nany intervention on the part of a deity. But there are a number of\nother cases where the action is affected by gods in ways which could\nnot be accounted for on any rationalistic hypothesis. We may refer to\nIl. III 380 ff., where Aphrodite snatches Paris away from Menelaos and\nconveys him to his own house in Troy. Or again to several passages in\nthe Diomedeia where deities show themselves almost or quite without\ndisguise and even take an active part in the fighting. A still greater\namount of imagination perhaps is required for the scenes which depict\nthe quarrels and amusements of the gods in Olympos, and their schemes\nfor helping or destroying the combatants. It has been held that all\nsuch passages as these belong to a later period than those of the less\nimaginative types described above.\n\nIn Teutonic stories of the Heroic Age, as we have already seen, very\nfew notices relating to the gods have been preserved. The appearances\nof Othin in V\u00f6lsunga Saga (cf. p. 114) may be compared with those of\nApollo in the Iliad or Athene in the Odyssey; for his divinity is not\nrecognised at once, though he does not take the form of a person known\nto his favourites. Again, though I know no exact Homeric parallel\nto the incident in Sigmundr's last battle, when the hero's sword is\nshattered at the touch of Othin's javelin, the idea is in complete\nharmony with several passages in the Diomedeia (e.g. V 129 ff., 438\nff., VI 128 ff., 306 f.). It is true that we do not know whether these\nincidents in V\u00f6lsunga Saga are based on old tradition or not. But a\ngood parallel for the last of the Homeric types is furnished by the\nLangobardic story of Wodan and Fria and the victory granted by them\nto the Winniles (cf. p. 115). The similarity between this story and\nthe incident related of Zeus and Hera in Il. XIV 153-353 gives us\nsome ground for suspecting that the heathen poetry of the Teutonic\nHeroic Age may have possessed decided 'Homeric' characteristics in its\ntreatment of the gods.\n\nAs the case stands however we shall have to take our illustrations from\nstories of the Viking Age. A somewhat curious parallel to the incident\nof Athene and Hector in Il. XXII 226 ff. is to be found in the story\nof Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn, as told in Saxo's History, pp. 255, 263. Haraldr\nhad a confidential servant named Bruno, whom he employed to drive his\nchariot and to carry messages to his nephew Ringo (Sigur\u00f0r Hringr).\nThis man eventually was drowned; but Othin took his place and form, and\nexerted himself to sow discord between the two kings. It was not until\nthe battle at Bravalla had begun that Haraldr had any suspicion of the\ntreachery which had been played upon him. Then suddenly recognising\nthe identity of his charioteer he begged him to grant him victory. But\nOthin threw him out of the chariot and slew him.\n\nThe story of Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn refers, it is true, to times for\nwhich we have no historical records. But a still more graphic story\nof intervention on the part of divine beings occurs in connection\nwith a well-known event--the expedition made against Norway by the\nJ\u00f3msv\u00edkingar. In the latter part of the tenth century a number of\nScandinavian adventurers had established and fortified a settlement at\nJ\u00f3msborg on the island of Wollin at the mouth of the Oder. About the\nyear 994 their leaders, Sigvaldi and B\u00fai, made a vow to attack Haakon,\nearl of Lade, who then ruled Norway. The earl was taken by surprise\nand had not been able to muster all his forces when he encountered the\nhostile fleet at Hi\u00f6rungav\u00e1gr, near the mouth of the Romsdal Fjord.\nThe battle at first went against him; and, according to the story, he\ntook advantage of a respite in the fighting to retire to one of the\nislands and pray to Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r. He was not able to obtain\nher assistance until he had sacrificed to her his youngest son. When\nhe resumed the fight, the weather, which had been hot, underwent a\ncomplete change. A snow-storm came from the north and beat in the\nfaces of the pirates, so that they were numbed with the cold and could\nneither move nor see. But worse was to come. \"It is said that H\u00e1var\u00f0r,\none of B\u00fai's companions, was the first to see Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r in Haakon's\nfleet; but soon she was seen by many, both those who had second sight\nand those who had not. When the snow abated a little they saw also\nthat arrows were flying, as it seemed, from every one of the demon's\nfingers, and each arrow brought about a man's death.\" Then they tell\nSigvaldi, who says: \"It seems to me that we have got to fight today not\nagainst men, but against the worst of devils.\" Still he continues the\nfight. When Haakon saw that the snow was abating he cried with all his\nmight to Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r and her sister Irpa, reminding them how much he had\ngiven up to them in sacrificing his son. Then the storm began again,\nand soon H\u00e1var\u00f0r saw two female figures on Haakon's ship, both acting\nas the one had done previously. Then Sigvaldi said that he would now\ntake to flight and that all his men were to do likewise, for they had\nmade no vow to fight against devils[386].\n\nHere also we may cite a story connected with another historical event,\nwhich took place about ten years before the battle of Hi\u00f6rungav\u00e1gr.\nEric the Victorious, king of Sweden, expelled his nephew Styrbi\u00f6rn from\nthe kingdom; and the latter invaded the country with the help of the\nDanish king Harold Blue-tooth. On the eve of the battle Eric went into\nOthin's temple and in order to obtain victory promised to give himself\nup dead at the end of ten years. Soon afterwards he saw a big man\nwith a long hood, who put a cane into his hand and told him to throw\nit over Styrbi\u00f6rn's army saying: \"You all belong to Othin.\" When he\nthrew the cane it seemed to turn into a javelin and brought blindness\nupon Styrbi\u00f6rn and all his host. On the same occasion Thor was seen\nin Styrbi\u00f6rn's camp[387]. Such cases are by no means isolated. Olafr\nTryggvason, who reigned over Norway from 995 to 1000, is said to have\nbeen visited both by Othin and Thor[388].\n\nOf dreams perhaps the most interesting case is a story told of an\nIcelander named Gl\u00famr, a contemporary of Earl Haakon of Lade. A\ncertain Th\u00f3rkell possessed an estate which he was compelled to sell to\nGl\u00famr. Before leaving he went to Frey's temple, sacrificed an ox and\nprayed that Gl\u00famr likewise might be forced to give up the estate. This\nactually came to pass. But before he left, Gl\u00famr dreamed that he saw a\ngreat crowd on the river banks coming to see Frey, who was seated on\na chair. In his dream he asked who they were. They replied that they\nwere his departed relatives and that they were praying Frey that he\n(Gl\u00famr) should not be driven from his estate. But it was of no use;\nFrey answered curtly and angrily, remembering the ox which Th\u00f3rkell had\ngiven him[389].\n\nFor the action of Homeric deities in sending birds as a mark of favour\nor omen of success a good parallel is to be found in another incident\nin the life of Earl Haakon of Lade. When Jutland was invaded by the\nEmperor Otto II in 974 Harold Blue-tooth summoned Haakon to his\nassistance. After the campaign the Danish king adopted Christianity\nand compelled Haakon to do likewise. But the latter set off with his\nfleet as soon as possible and, landing on the coast of \u00d6sterg\u00f6tland,\nproceeded to offer a great sacrifice. Thereupon there came two ravens\nflying by and screaming loud. The earl interpreted this as a sign that\nOthin had accepted the sacrifice and that he would have a favourable\ntime for battle[390].\n\nThe importance of the last case is enhanced by the fact that it is\nderived from a contemporary poem, the Vellekla (cf. p. 16), in which\nthe ravens are mentioned. In the other cases given above no such early\nauthority is extant, and our texts themselves are separated by a period\nof from two to three centuries from the events which they relate. But\nthere is no reason for doubting that the stories had long been in\nexistence. It is questionable indeed whether the account of the battle\nof Hi\u00f6rungav\u00e1gr could have been invented after all recollection of\nHaakon and his religious observances had died away. The earl's devotion\nto the worship of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r is known from other sources;\nbut she seems not to have been a generally recognised member of the\nNorthern Pantheon.\n\nHowever that may be, no doubt can be entertained with regard to the\npoem H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l, which deals with the death of King Haakon I at the\nbattle of Fitje in 961 (cf. p. 15). The author, Eyvindr Skaldaspillir,\nwas himself present at the battle. The poem relates how G\u00f6ndul and\nSk\u00f6gul were sent by Othin to select a prince of Yngvi's line, who\nshould go and dwell with him in Valh\u00f6ll. Then, after a short account of\nthe battle, we are told that \"the princes sat with their swords drawn,\nwith scarred shields and mail-coats pierced; in no cheerful mood was\nthe host which had to make its way to Valh\u00f6ll. Then said G\u00f6ndul, as she\nleaned upon her spear: 'Now will the forces of the gods be increased,\nsince they have summoned Haakon to their abodes with a great host.'\nThe prince heard what the noble Valkyries were saying. Thoughtful was\ntheir mien, as they sat on their steeds, with helmets upon their heads\nand holding their shields before them. 'Why hast thou thus decided the\nbattle, Sk\u00f6gul? Surely we have deserved success from the gods.' 'We\nhave brought it about that thou hast won the day and that thy foes\nhave fled. Now,' said the mighty Sk\u00f6gul, 'we must ride to the green\nhomes of the gods, to tell Othin that a monarch is coming to enter his\npresence.'\" Then the scene changes to Valh\u00f6ll; and Othin sends Herm\u00f3\u00f0r\nand Bragi out to meet the king and bid him welcome[391].\n\nSuch poems as H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l and Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l must be regarded as products of\nvivid poetic imagination. They are clearly in the nature of conscious\nfiction, though it should not be assumed that the pictures of the\ngods and their abode which they present were conceptions altogether\nunreal to the poets' audiences. I suppose that ultimately this type of\ncomposition is derived from visions or dreams, such as the story of\nGl\u00famr given above. For, though the latter in its present form dates\nfrom a period at least two centuries later than H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l--both\nreferring to persons who lived more or less about the same time--it\nwill probably be agreed that the conception there is far more primitive.\n\nNow we have good evidence that visions which took the form of visits\nto the home of the gods did really obtain credence in the Viking Age.\nWhen St Ansgar visited Sweden for the second time, not long after 850,\nhe found that the success of his mission was seriously endangered. A\nman had come to Birca (Bi\u00f6rk\u00f6, on the M\u00e4lar), where the king, Olaf,\nwas residing, and stated that he had been present at an assembly\nof the gods, who had sent him to deliver a message to the king and\nnation. This was to the effect that the gods had long been gracious\nto the Swedes and had preserved their land in peace and prosperity.\nYet now the Swedes were abandoning their accustomed sacrifices and\nintroducing a strange god. If they wished to retain their favour the\nsacrifices must be resumed on a larger scale, and the new god must\nbe refused admittance. \"But if you desire to have more gods, and we\nare not sufficient for you, we unanimously enrol in our body Eric who\nwas formerly your king, so that he shall be counted among the gods.\"\nThis story created a profound impression among the inhabitants. \"They\nfounded a temple in honour of the above-mentioned king, who had long\nbeen dead, and began to offer prayers and sacrifices to him as a\ngod[392].\"\n\nThe Life of St Ansgar, from which this story is taken, is practically a\ncontemporary authority. It was written by St Rembert, one of Ansgar's\ndisciples, who succeeded him as Archbishop of Hamburg in 865 and died\nin 888. In face of such evidence we have no reason for doubting that\nstories such as that of Gl\u00famr would readily obtain credence. Indeed\nit seems scarcely impossible that the doings of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r\nat Hi\u00f6rungav\u00e1gr may have been believed by persons who were alive at\nthe time. Yet credulity was no special characteristic of the Northern\npeoples. We learn from inscriptions that Asclepios was in the habit\nof showing himself to pilgrims in his temple at Epidauros. Still\nmore striking evidence is furnished by Herodotus' story (I 60) that\nPeisistratos recovered the tyranny at Athens by dressing up a woman\nto personate Athene and accompanying her in a chariot to the city.\nHerodotus himself remarks that this took place at a time when the\nGreek race had long been distinguished from the rest of mankind by its\nsuperior sagacity and freedom from silly credulity--and in a state too\nwhich was held to be intellectually supreme among the Greeks. Whatever\ndoubt may be entertained as to the truth of the story it is significant\nenough that Herodotus should record it, apparently without any\nhesitation, in less than a century after Peisistratos' death. Some four\ncenturies earlier men may well have been ready to hear that the gods\ntook an active part in the battles of their fathers or grandfathers,\nwhile the latter themselves may have been quite as ready to attribute\ntheir success or failure to the disguised agency of the same powers.\n\nIt is clear at all events that the Scandinavian evidence fails to\nprovide any justification for the view that poems which introduce the\ngods must date from times far removed from the events which they claim\nto commemorate. In the contemporary H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l we find two of the most\nadvanced Homeric types. First, we have deities participating without\ndisguise in battle; then a change of scene carries us to the actual\nhome of the gods. The second scene in H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l--which is likewise the\nscene of Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l--may be compared both with the various 'Olympic'\nepisodes and also with the two Nekyiai. For, since Othin is a god of\nthe dead, his abode corresponds in a sense both to Olympos and the\nhome of Hades. On the whole perhaps the nearest affinities of the two\nNorwegian poems are with the second Nekyia (Od. XXIV 1-204), which is\ncommonly regarded as one of the latest portions of the Odyssey.\n\nLastly, the Scandinavian evidence gives no support to the belief that\nthe more imaginative types of divine intervention necessarily belong to\na later date than the others. In principle of course it may be admitted\nthat they are less primitive. But in Old Norse literature it so happens\nthat they occur in both earlier and more nearly contemporary works. The\nexplanation lies doubtless in the fact that the theological apparatus\nof Norse poetry was fully developed before the time of our earliest\nauthorities. So far as I can see, there is no good reason for denying\nthat the same remark holds good for the Homeric poems. But if so it is\nfutile to use evidence of this kind as a criterion for determining the\ndate of the various portions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMonsters and theriomorphic demons are by no means unknown in Greek\nheroic stories, though in the poems which have come down to us they\nfigure prominently only in episodes dealing with past events. The\nnearest Homeric analogies to Beowulf's adventures are perhaps to be\nfound in the stories of Bellerophon and Meleagros[393] (Il. VI 178 ff.;\nIX 538 ff.). It may be that these stories and others, such as that of\nPerseus, themselves once formed the main themes of heroic poems, and\nthat the backward position which they ultimately came to occupy, as\ncompared with stories of anthropomorphic deities, is due to the growth\nof poetic art and humanistic tendencies. But on the other hand we have\nto remember that heroic poetry is always liable to the intrusion of\nfolk-tales, in which adventures with monsters form one of the favourite\nthemes.\n\nThe chief store-house of folk-tales in the Homeric poems is the\nnarrative of his adventures given by Odysseus to the Phaeacians (Od.\nIX-XII). This narrative contains a considerable number of incidents, of\nwhich ten may be regarded as more or less distinct: (i) the encounter\nwith the Cicones, (ii) the visit to the land of the Lotus-eaters, (iii)\nthe adventure with Polyphemos, (iv) the two visits to Aiolos, (v) the\ndisaster in the land of the Laistrygones, (vi) the two visits to Circe,\n(vii) the journey to the home of Hades, (viii) the singing of the\nSirens, (ix) the adventure with Scylla and Charybdis, (x) the slaughter\nof the cattle of Helios.\n\nThe first of these incidents bears no obvious traces of derivation or\ninfluence from a folk-tale; but it is the only one of the series of\nwhich this can be stated with any confidence. The adventures with the\nLotus-eaters and the Laistrygones should perhaps be regarded rather as\ntravellers' stories--founded possibly on actual experience of foreign\npeoples--yet the latter at least contains certain distorted features\nwhich may fairly bring it within our category. As to the origin of the\nadventure with Polyphemos there can be little doubt. It appears to be\nfound with slight variants in many different parts of the world[394].\n\nThe last incident of the series is perhaps the one least widely known;\nbut a parallel may be cited from one of Saxo's stories (p. 286 f.). A\ncertain Danish king named Gormo[395] was an ardent explorer. Above all\nhe desired to visit the abode of Geruthus (Geirr\u00f6\u00f0r), which lay beyond\nthe ocean in a land of perpetual darkness. Taking with him as guide an\nexperienced traveller, named Thorkillus, he set sail with three ships\nand made his way beyond Halogaland (the north of Norway). There, having\nlost its way in a storm, the expedition came to be in want of food.\nEventually they arrived at an island which contained herds of extremely\ntame cattle. Against the advice of Thorkillus the mariners slaughtered\na large number of these. The following night they were attacked by\nmonsters, one of whom declared that they would not be allowed to sail\naway until they made compensation for the losses they had inflicted on\nthe herd of the gods. In order to save themselves they had to give up\none man from each ship.\n\nIt will be seen that this incident bears a general resemblance to the\nslaughtering of the cattle of Helios, and we need scarcely hesitate\nto regard both stories as variant forms of a folk-tale. As to its\norigin we are not altogether without evidence in the Northern case. In\nAlcuin's _Vita Willebrordi_, I cap. 10, it is stated that a certain\nisland (now Heligoland) was entirely sacred to a god named Fosite.\nSo great was the sanctity with which it was regarded that no one\nventured to touch any of the animals which grazed upon the island. The\nviolation of the sanctuary, in this and other respects, cost one of St\nWillebrord's companions his life. Hence there is no need to doubt that\na basis of fact underlies the stories of islands in which animal life\nwas held sacred--just as in holy woods throughout the north of Europe.\nIt is scarcely impossible that similar island sanctuaries may once have\nbeen known in the Mediterranean.\n\nThe subsequent course of the story has a certain affinity with that\nof Circe. After leaving the island Gormo and his men sailed in safety\nto the farther part of Permland, where they were met by a giant named\nGuthmundus[396], the brother of Geruthus, who invited them to his\nhouse. Thorkillus strictly enjoined his companions to abstain from all\nfood and drink offered them, even from the fruits which grew in the\ngarden, and to avoid contact with members of the household. Those who\nyielded to temptation, as a few eventually did, would have to spend the\nrest of their lives among monsters. There is no actual transformation\nas in the story of Circe; but this in itself is a widely known incident\nin folk-tales.\n\nWhen the travellers at length reach the abode of Geruthus the scene,\nthough horrible in every way, seems to be a variety of the Enchanted\nCastle rather than a parallel to the home of Hades[397]. We have\nseen above that the poems H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l and Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l may in a sense be\ncompared with the two Nekyiai; for Valh\u00f6ll is the abode not only of\nthe chief god but also of the spirits of fallen warriors. But here\nwe have to deal with elaborate conceptions of court poetry which are\nfurther removed from the spirit of the true folk-tale than either of\nthe passages in the Odyssey[398]. A better parallel to the first Nekyia\nis perhaps to be found in another of Saxo's stories (p. 31). Once upon\na time, when King Hadingus was feasting, there appeared to him a woman\nwho was carrying hemlocks. She wrapped him in her mantle and took him\nwith her underground in order to show him where the hemlocks grew. On\nthe way they passed through a dark cloud and then along a well-worn\npath, where they saw many men richly attired. After viewing the sunny\nregions where the hemlocks grew, they crossed a rapid river and then\nsaw two armies engaged in desperate conflict. The woman told Hadingus\nthat these were men who had been slain by the sword and continually\nrehearsed the manner of their death. They are obviously to be connected\nwith the _einheriar_ of Old Norse poetry--the slain warriors who dwell\nin Valh\u00f6ll and spend their days in combat--though possibly this passage\nrepresents a more primitive form of the idea. It is to be observed that\nSaxo himself explicitly interprets the story as a visit to the region\nof the dead.\n\nStories of this kind are to be found in many parts of the world--among\npeoples as widely apart as the Algonquins, the Zulus and the\nMaoris[399]. There can be little doubt that to a large extent the first\nNekyia belongs to the same category. At the same time of course I do\nnot mean to imply that it is wholly to be regarded as a folk-tale.\nIn the interview with Agamemnon and his companions (vv. 385-564) we\nfind ourselves in much the same world of ideas as is presented to us\nin Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l and H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l. Again, it is to be remembered that the\nobject of Odysseus' journey was to consult the spirit of Teiresias, and\nthis is perhaps the original kernel of the story. Such an idea however\nmay be derived from ancient religious observances rather than from a\nfolk-tale. Herodotus (V 92) records that Periandros, tyrant of Corinth,\nabout the close of the sixth century, sent an embassy to the oracle of\nthe dead (\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03ca\u03bf\u03bd) on the river Acheron in Thesprotis, in order\nto consult the spirit of his wife Melissa. After making all allowance\nfor antiquarian and etymological speculation[400] it seems probable\nthat this oracle did influence the conceptions of the home of the dead\ncurrent in Greek poetry.\n\nIt would appear then that in the composition of the first Nekyia we\nhave to take account of the influence of at least three different\nelements--court poetry, folk-tale and religious (necromantic)\nobservances. If we are right in supposing that Aeolis was the true\nhome of all Homeric poetry, the absence of any precise geographical\nindications is easily accounted for. During the centuries which\nintervened between the end of the Heroic Age and the beginning of\nthe historical period there is extremely little evidence, whether\ntraditional or archaeological, for communication with distant lands;\nand it is likely enough that at that time Thesprotis was as unfamiliar\nas Egypt to the inhabitants of Aeolis. Few scholars will dispute\nthat the geographical indications throughout the story of Odysseus'\nwanderings are both vague and contradictory. Sometimes he appears\nto be in the west; sometimes again he is following the track of the\nArgo--presumably in the Black Sea. That is after all the kind of\nconfusion which might reasonably be expected from poets who were\ndealing with traditions of voyages made long before in regions now\naltogether forgotten.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe ascription of supernatural properties to men or animals is not a\nvery striking feature in Homeric poetry--unless we include under this\nhead stories of exaggerated prowess. As an example we may cite Il.\nXIX 404 ff., where one of Achilles' horses speaks and prophesies his\nmaster's death. Incidents such as the flame on the same hero's head in\nIl. XVIII 205 ff. and the changes in Odysseus' appearance (Od. XIII 429\nff., etc.) are attributed to the direct action of deities. On the other\nhand exaggeration is common and often carried out systematically. Among\nsuch cases we must include the feats of valour performed by some of the\ncombatants, and also presumably the numbers of the forces stated in the\ncatalogues, if we admit that the story of the siege of Troy has any\nhistorical foundation.\n\nOn the whole it appears that those elements in the Homeric poems\nwhich may quite safely be derived from myth or folk-tale resemble\nthe corresponding elements in Teutonic heroic poetry very closely.\nWe may perhaps doubt whether the gods ever figured so conspicuously\nin Teutonic poetry as they do in the Iliad and Odyssey; but the\ndifference between the two cases is one of degree only. In the use made\nof folk-tales the difference is very slight. It remains for us now\nto consider whether the remaining elements in the poems--their main\ngroundwork in fact--should be regarded as of similar origin in both\ncases.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[385] Jebb, _Introduction to Homer_, p. 147.\n\n[386] J\u00f3msv\u00edkinga Saga, cap. 44 (Fornmanna S\u00f6gur, XI p. 136 ff.);\nFlateyiarb\u00f3k, I 191 f. Snorri gives a different account of the battle\nin the Heimskringla (Olafs S. Tryggv. 43 ff.); but he was acquainted\nwith at least part of the story given above.\n\n[387] Styrbiarnar Th\u00e1ttr, cap. 2 (Fornm. S\u00f6g., V p. 250).\n\n[388] Olafs S. Tryggv. A (Heimskr.), cap. 71; Olafs S. Tryggv. B, cap.\n213 (Fornm. S\u00f6g., II p. 182 f.).\n\n[389] V\u00edga-Gl\u00fams Saga, cap. 9, 26.\n\n[390] Olafs S. Tryggv. (Heimskr.), cap. 27 f.\n\n[391] This latter part of the poem is copied from Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l (cf. p.\n15), in which Othin sends out Sigmundr and Sinfi\u00f6tli to meet Eir\u00edkr. We\ndo not know either the date or the author of Eir\u00edksm\u00e1l; but it would\nseem from the Saxon Chronicle that Eir\u00edkr was still alive about the\nyear 954.\n\n[392] _Porro, si etiam plures deos habere desideratis, et uobis non\nsufficimus, Ericum, quondam regem uestrum, nos unanimes in collegium\nnostrum asciscimus, ut sit unus de numero deorum.... Nam et templum in\nhonore supradicti regis dudum defuncti statuerunt, et ipsi tanquam deo\nuota et sacrificia offerre coeperunt._ Rembertus, _Vita S. Anscharii_,\ncap. 23.\n\n[393] The first stage in the growth of such a story as this may be\nillustrated from the message of the Mysians given by Herodotus, I 36.\nThe development which it may ultimately attain can be seen from the\nstory of Kilhwch and Olwen.\n\n[394] Cf. Macculloch, _The Childhood of Fiction_, p. 279 ff.\n\n[395] The historical connections of this story are somewhat obscure.\nBut this is immaterial for our purpose, as the part with which we are\ndealing is clearly derived from folk-tales.\n\n[396] Gu\u00f0mundr of Gl\u00e6sisvellir is a well-known figure in the\nunhistorical parts of sagas.\n\n[397] A better parallel is perhaps furnished by Thorkillus' subsequent\nvisit to the abode of Ugarthilocus (p. 292 ff.). The description of\nthis place recalls that of N\u00e1str\u00f6nd in V\u00f6lusp\u00e1 39, Gylfaginning, cap.\n52.\n\n[398] The home of Hades resembles the abode of Hel rather than Valh\u00f6ll.\nTo this also we have a visit (by the god Herm\u00f3\u00f0r) in Gylf. 49.\n\n[399] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_\u2074, I p. 346, II p. 50 ff.\n\n[400] As seen (e.g.) in the application of the name \u039a\u03c9\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 to a\ntributary of the Acheron. The presumption is that this name was\noriginally a creation of poetic fancy, just as much as \u03a0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd.\nThe diffusion of the names Acheron and Acherusia in other regions\n(Italy, the Black Sea, etc.) is doubtless due to the influence of\npoetry or tradition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nMYTH IN THE HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n\nIt is commonly held that history, myth and fiction have all contributed\nto the formation of the Greek heroic stories; but opinions differ\nwidely as to the relative importance to be attributed to the three\nelements. Among modern scholars the general tendency has been to assign\nthe chief weight to myth. By many indeed the heroes of the Trojan War\nare believed to be as mythical in origin as the gods themselves.\n\nOne conclusion may safely be drawn from the Northern evidence discussed\nin the last chapter: we must definitely dismiss the argument that the\nHomeric heroes cannot have been men of flesh and blood because they\nare brought into contact with the gods. No one will be so hardy as to\nsuggest that King Haakon or his namesake, the famous earl of Lade,\nwere products of myth or poetic imagination. Yet G\u00f6ndul is as much\nresponsible for the death of King Haakon as Athene is for that of\nHector. There is certainly this difference between the two cases, that\nwe have no historical evidence for the existence of the Homeric heroes.\nBut the fact that deities participate in their destruction does not in\nitself prove that they are themselves products of myth or fiction.\n\nThere was a time, not so very long ago, when most of the characters\nof the Greek Heroic Age were believed to owe their origin to\nnature-myth--personifications of light, darkness and so forth. At the\npresent time however it is only in some few cases that this view is\ngenerally maintained. Its chief stronghold is the case of Achilles; and\nhere we are invariably referred for proof to the story of Sigur\u00f0r. The\ntwo characters have of course a good deal in common. Both are more\nor less idealised types of youthful strength and valour, and both die\nprematurely. But it would be pure folly to regard these features as\nin themselves proofs of mythical origin. In order to prove this it is\nnecessary to point to features which can only be mythical, and to show\nthat such features formed an original element in the stories.\n\nNow we have seen (p. 140 ff.) that the current explanation with\nregard to Sigur\u00f0r is open to the most serious--in my opinion\nfatal--objections. On the other hand there certainly was a tendency for\nmyth to grow up in later times round this hero. As an instance we may\ntake his invulnerability, a feature which is peculiar to the German\nversion of the story. Achilles possesses the same characteristic--but\nnot in the Iliad or Odyssey. It is as much unknown in the Homeric\naccount of Achilles as in the Norse account of Sigur\u00f0r. Indeed the only\nessentially mythical feature which the poems themselves record in the\ncase of Achilles--and it is by no means peculiar to his case--is that\nhe is the son of a deity[401]. But divine descent was claimed also by\nmany Teutonic princes, though the heroes of our stories are usually\nseparated from their divine ancestors by two or three generations[402].\nWhatever may be the explanation of this phenomenon it is doubtless to\nbe connected with the stories of conjugal relations between human and\ndivine beings which we find both in Greece and in northern Europe.\nThis is a subject to which we shall have to return in a later chapter.\nAbove all, however, we have to take account of the influence of\nfolk-tales[403] and popular beliefs, which, as we have seen from the\nTeutonic evidence, may make itself felt even in the description of very\nrecent events.\n\nThe story of the abduction of Helen is another case for which many\nscholars still claim a mythical origin. It is perfectly true that\nstories of (e.g.) the abduction of the sun or the incontinence of the\nmoon[404] do occur, though examples of this type are by no means so\ncommon or widespread as many writers have assumed[405]. But what is apt\nto be overlooked is that these stories arise from a personification of\nthe sun or moon, and that it is in consequence of this personification\nthat the heavenly bodies are believed to be exposed to perils and\npassions such as affect human beings. It is surely nothing less than an\ninversion of the natural order of things to suppose that the numerous\nclass of folk-tales which deal with the abduction of a girl or wife\noriginated in the type--a comparatively rare type--in which this motif\nis applied to the sun. There can be no reasonable doubt that the\nprevalence of such folk-tales is due to the innumerable occurrences of\nabduction in real life. But the theory we are discussing involves not\nmerely the personification of heavenly bodies and natural phenomena but\ntheir complete anthropomorphisation[406]--a very doubtful process in\nthe best of cases--whereas the story which it seeks to explain bears no\ntrace even of derivation from a folk-tale. In other words we are asked\nto assume a most complex and precarious hypothesis in order to account\nfor a story for which parallels are to be found very frequently in\nalmost all stages of human society.\n\nOf course I do not mean to say that the story of Helen is entirely\ndevoid of mythical elements. On the contrary, it is a most instructive\nexample of the growth of myth, and as such it furnishes an interesting\nparallel to the history of similar stories in the north of Europe. In\nthe Iliad Helen possesses no mythical characteristics, except that she\nis the offspring of a divine father. In the Cypria she had apparently\nalso acquired a divine mother (Nemesis). By the seventh century we find\nher figuring in quite a different story of abduction--a story which\nseems to have been treated by Alcman and Stesichoros, as well as on the\n'Chest of Cypselos.' This time she is carried off by Theseus, with the\nhelp of Peirithoos, and rescued by her brothers, the Dioscoroi[407].\nSomewhat later we find a new version of the story of her abduction by\nParis. Now it is said to be only her \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd which is carried off by\nParis; Helen herself is taken by Hermes to Egypt[408]. There seems\nto be little reason for doubting that the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd was a deliberate\ninvention of Stesichoros, though in other respects this version of the\nstory may well have been influenced by the Egyptian version, recorded\nby Herodotus (II 112 ff.). The latter again comes in all probability\nfrom Greek settlers in Egypt, who connected the narrative of Helen's\nsojourn in Egypt, related in the Odyssey (IV 125 ff., 351 ff.), with\na cult which they found existing in that country. This version of the\nstory then should perhaps be regarded as a product of fiction rather\nthan myth. The other story however--that of Theseus, Peirithoos and the\nDioscoroi--is doubtless of popular origin. It is important to notice\nthat both these pairs of heroes are connected with other stories of\nabduction[409]. Moreover in both cases these stories have certain\nelements in common with that of Persephone. There can be little doubt\ntherefore that we have to deal with a folk-tale. The introduction\nof Helen into the story may be due partly to her kinship with the\nDioscoroi and partly to the influence of the story of her abduction by\nParis.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt the present time it appears to be the more general opinion that the\nHomeric heroes originated mainly not in personifications of natural\nphenomena, but in tribal divinities or personified conceptions of\npeoples ('hypostasierte Volksindividualit\u00e4ten'). Now we have seen (p.\n131 f.) that in Teutonic heroic poetry we occasionally meet with the\nmythical eponymous ancestors of families, though such persons are\nreferred to the past and not introduced into the main action of the\nstories. Similar characters are to be found in the Homeric poems.\nPerhaps the best example occurs in a speech of Aineias (Il. XX 200\nff.), where the names \u0394\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2, and \u1f3e\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 are included in the\nhero's genealogy. The Cadmos of Od. V 333 is probably to be regarded,\nin some sense or other, as the eponymous ancestor of the Cadmeioi,\nthough he is not mentioned in connection with Thebes. Again, in Od.\nXVII 207 we have a reference to eponymous heroes of places, Ithacos\nand Neritos. They are perhaps creatures of the poet's own imagination,\ni.e. fictitious rather than mythical beings; but it is probable that\nthey were modelled upon existing types. Other examples of both types\nmay be found elsewhere in the poems[410]. Yet it cannot be said that\nthey are common. In Greece, as in northern Europe, the true home of\neponymous ancestors (Hellen, Doros, Achaios, etc.[411]) is to be found\nin post-heroic, or at least non-heroic, literature.\n\nIn recent years however several scholars have put forward the theory\nthat the characters who figure in the main action of the Iliad are\ntribal heroes in disguise. For a simple example of this theory we may\nrefer to the interpretation put upon Il. V 43 ff., where the Cretan\nleader Idomeneus is represented as slaying a man named Phaistos\n(\u03a6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2). Now there was in Crete a well-known city called Phaistos\n(\u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2). According to Prof. E. Bethe (_Neue Jahrb\u00fccher_, VII 669)\nit cannot be disputed that the man Phaistos is the 'eponym' of the\ncity and that we have here the remains of an ancient Cretan heroic\nlay. But the origin of the man is stated explicitly enough in the poem\n(_l.c._): he is the son of Boros the Maeonian and had come from a place\ncalled Tarne. Before we can assume that he was the 'eponym' of a Cretan\ncity we must surely ask how he came to be represented as a Maeonian\n(Lydian). Is it inconceivable that a name identical with that of a city\nshould be borne by anyone except the eponymous hero of the city?\n\nThis is not the only case of the kind which has been brought forward.\nIn Il. V 706 we hear of an Aetolian named Trechos slain by Hector and\nin Il. XX 455 of a Trojan named Dryops slain by Achilles. Here we are\nsaid to have 'eponyms' of Trachis and the Dryopes. In England during\nthe centuries immediately following the Heroic Age we find mention in\nhistorical documents of princes or ecclesiastics called Walh, Cumbra,\nSeaxa, Dene, Fronca, etc. Are we to suppose that these persons are the\neponymous heroes of the Welsh or Cymry, the Saxons, Danes and Franks?\nBut national names of this type seem to have been just as frequently\nused by the Greeks, at least in historical times. We may mention\nAchaios of Eretria, Ion of Chios and Dorieus the brother of Leonidas.\nIs there any reason for denying their use in earlier times[412]?\n\nThe evidence of these names has been brought forward in support of\na far-reaching theory--that the conflicts which we find described\nin the Iliad are echoes of tribal struggles which once took place\nin Greece, and that the warriors, Trojans as well as Greeks, are in\nreality mythical heroes in whom the various contending tribes have\nbecome personified. If this theory is sound it will be obvious that the\nresemblance between Greek and Teutonic heroic poetry must be merely\nsuperficial--that the two groups of poems spring from essentially\ndifferent sources. It will be well then to examine somewhat carefully\nthe evidence on which the theory is based.\n\nThe first argument in its favour is derived from a story quoted by\nPlutarch (_Theseus_, cap. 34) from Istros, a writer of the third\ncentury, to the effect that Alexandros (Paris) was overcome by Achilles\nand Patroclos on the banks of the Spercheios. In confirmation of this\nstory it is pointed out that the warriors with whom Paris fights\nin the Iliad mostly belong to Thessaly, while his sister Alexandra\n(Cassandra) was worshipped by the Locrians. Another argument rests on\na story derived from the Little Iliad, that Andromache was brought\nto Pharsalos after the fall of Troy. The inference that she belonged\noriginally to this region is supported by the proposed identification\nof Thebe Hypoplacie, her home in the Iliad, with the Phthiotic Thebes,\nto the east of Pharsalos. Yet a further argument relates to Hector.\nIt is noted that he was worshipped as a hero at Thebes in Boeotia,\nand that most of the persons associated with him, either as friends\nor foes, are connected with Boeotia, Thessaly and the intervening\ndistricts. In Prof. Bethe's words \"Hector's tracks lead from southern\nThessaly, through Phocis and Boeotia, to the Cadmean Thebes.\" \"In other\nwords Hector, or rather the tribe which honoured Hector as their hero,\nmigrated by this road. More accurately, the tribe gradually, in how\nmany centuries none can tell, moved in a south-easterly direction,\ndriven by a pressure which was no doubt exerted by the Aeolic tribe\nrepresented in the Epos by Achilles[413].\"\n\nNow it is manifest that the argument derived from Istros' story\ncan have validity only if it can be shown that there is reason for\nbelieving it to be based on genuine native tradition, independent of\nthe Homeric poems. For everyone who has studied the history of Teutonic\nheroic poetry knows that in the later forms of the stories the scene is\nliable to be changed to entirely different countries. Thus the fight\nof He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni is located in the Orkneys in the Norse version of\ntheir story, while in K\u00fbdr\u00fbn Hagen is made a king in Ireland. Again,\nin the Vitae Duorum Offarum the whole story of Offa and his single\ncombat is transplanted to the English Mercia, the home of the hero's\ndescendants. Yet in the case of Istros' story the requisite evidence\nseems to be altogether wanting. If the story really comes from local\ntradition it may very well be due to an imperfect acquaintance with the\nHomeric poems. But the context, which mentions Hector as well as Paris,\nsuggests rather that Istros was referring not to the story of the Iliad\nat all but to an early adventure of the two brothers[414]--presumably\none of those accretions to the old heroic cycles, for which so many\nparallels can be found in late Teutonic authorities like Thi\u00f0reks Saga\naf Bern.\n\nThe argument relating to the Locrian cult of Alexandra (Cassandra)\nneed scarcely be considered at length; for, however ancient this cult\nmay have been, it was always connected with the sanctuary of Athene\nat Troy[415]. The cult of Hector at Thebes likewise seems to have\nbeen derived from the same quarter, perhaps in comparatively late\ntimes[416]. Again, the identification of Andromache's home with Thebes\nin Phthiotis is admittedly nothing more than a conjecture.\n\nOne argument still remains for consideration, namely that the persons\nbrought into contact with Hector come chiefly from the north-eastern\nparts of Greece and those encountered by Paris chiefly from Thessaly.\nNow it is to be observed that several of the persons whose names\nfigure in Prof. Bethe's lists (_op. cit._, p. 670 ff.) are not said\nto come from Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. in the Iliad itself. That they\nwere derived from this quarter is merely an inference from the fact\nthat other persons belonging to Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. bear the same\nnames. It cannot for a moment be suspected that in V. 705, XV. 547 ff.\nthe poets themselves were thinking of Orestes the son of Agamemnon or\nof Melanippos the famous Theban hero. But surely nothing can be more\nabsurd than the proposition that persons who bear the same name must\nnecessarily be identical in origin. In the Teutonic Heroic Age we know\nfrom historical sources of five kings named Theodric, all of whom were\nliving within half a century of one another. Have we any reason for\nsupposing that the ancient Greeks were more careful to avoid the use of\nnames which had already been appropriated?[417]\n\nAgain, the lists given by Prof. Bethe contain merely a selection of\nthe warriors encountered by Paris and Hector. The former fights in\nthe Iliad not only with the Thessalian heroes Machaon, Eurypylos and\nMenesthios, but also with Menelaos from Sparta, Diomedes from Argos and\nEuchenor from Corinth. Hector's antagonists include, among others, Aias\nfrom Salamis, Stichios from Athens, Periphetes from Mycenae, Lycophron\nfrom Cythera and Amphimachos from Elis. On the other hand Melanippos is\nmerely one, and by no means the most conspicuous, of the same hero's\nsupporters. Considering the evidence as a whole therefore I fail to see\nthat this argument is worth any more than the others.\n\nIt appears then that the evidence adduced in favour of the theory which\nwe are discussing is open to serious objection at every point[418].\nBut, leaving questions of detail, we have yet to notice that the theory\nas a whole consists of two main propositions. The first of these is\nthat the warriors of the Iliad are really 'tribal heroes,' i.e. in some\nsense or other personifications of tribes. In other words the contests\ndescribed in the poem were originally conflicts of tribes and not of\nindividuals. The second proposition is that these conflicts must have\ntaken place between neighbouring tribes. It will be seen that this\nproposition depends very largely upon the first. If the conflicts of\nthe Iliad really took place, as the poem states, between individual\nwarriors or bands of soldiers, there is no occasion for supposing that\nthe combatants were necessarily neighbours. As far back as the twelfth\nand thirteenth centuries Egyptian monuments testify, as we have seen,\nto enterprises far more distant than the expedition against Troy.\n\nNow the first proposition is of course nothing new in itself. On the\ncontrary, Prof. Bethe's theory is an outgrowth from a view which has\nbeen long and widely current--that the conflicts recorded in the Iliad\nare a reflection of the Aeolic settlement of the Asiatic coast. His\npurpose has been to show that only a comparatively small portion of the\nstory comes from this source[419], and that the bulk is derived from\nreminiscences of earlier tribal struggles in Greece, which have become\nembedded in the story of Troy. The two theories differ very greatly in\nthe explanations which they give of the origin of various incidents\nand characters. But it is not to be overlooked that the principle of\ninterpretation is the same in both cases.\n\nNo one will deny that the personification of tribes and nationalities\nis to be found in both the poetry and the prose literature of many\npeoples. In certain passages of the Old Testament this principle\nof interpretation has been recognised from ancient times. But the\nauthorities in which these passages occur cannot be described as\nheroic poems. Again Greek literature itself also yields plenty of\nobvious examples, such as the stories of Hellen and his sons and\nDanaos, several of which can be traced back to quite early poems.\nBut these poems appear to have been of the Hesiodic, and not of the\nHomeric school. If we turn to the Teutonic peoples, evidence for\nsuch personification is abundant, and some of it belongs to our very\nearliest records. But, except in genealogical references such as we\nhave dealt with above (p. 267), examples are not to be found in heroic\npoetry. The idea that the characters who are brought before us in\nthe poems--let us say Beowulf or Sigur\u00f0r or Witege--are themselves\npersonifications of tribes is one which probably no scholar would\nentertain.\n\nNow in the Homeric poems, as we have them, just as much as in Teutonic\nheroic poetry, the interest of the poets lies in the fortunes of\nindividual heroes, not in those of the communities to which they\nbelong. Even in those Teutonic stories which have the least claim to\nbe regarded as historical there is no reason for doubting that such\nwas the case from the very beginning. On the other hand the current\nhypothesis with regard to the origin of the Greek heroic stories\npostulates what can only be described as a complete revolution in the\ninterests of the poets and their audiences. This however is a postulate\nwhich ought not to be accepted, unless decisive evidence is forthcoming\nin its favour.\n\nIn the first place it must be observed that the existence of a poem or\nstory which deals with reminiscences of tribal conflicts necessarily\npresupposes an absorbing interest in tribal history. It will probably\nbe admitted by everyone that this interest can hardly have been of\nan academic character; indeed, we may assume, I think, that it must\nbe inspired by patriotic motives. If so, the foremost place will\nnaturally be taken by that tribe or community with which the story\noriginated. Now it is generally agreed that the Homeric poems contain\nboth Aeolic and Ionic elements. Further, though opinions differ\nwidely as to the relative importance of the two, there is a practical\nunanimity in believing that the Aeolic element is the earlier one. The\ntribal interest then, at least in the earlier elements in the poems,\nshould be essentially Aeolic. For 'Aeolic' we may practically say\nThessalian (using the term of course in a geographical sense); for the\nAeolic settlements, mainly at least, had proceeded from Thessaly. But\nAchilles, the chief hero of the Iliad, himself belongs to Thessaly; and\nso all is well. Further, many scholars hold that the later or Ionic\nelements in the poem are marked by the introduction of Nestor. There\nwas, apparently, a tradition current in Colophon that the inhabitants\nof that city had originally come from Pylos. Nestor therefore may be\nregarded as typifying the later or Ionic interests of the Iliad, just\nas Achilles typifies its earlier or Aeolic interests. This opinion\nhowever is by no means so widely entertained as the other.\n\nSo much for the Iliad; now let us turn to the Odyssey. Here we are\nconfronted with a serious difficulty. Odysseus is at least as much the\nhero of the Odyssey as Achilles is of the Iliad. But Odysseus belongs\nto the Ionian Isles; and there is no trace of either an Aeolic or an\nIonic population in these islands. It is not surprising then that\nthe Odyssey is put aside by the advocates of the theory which we are\ndiscussing. The tendency is to regard it as a later work--originating\nperhaps at a time when tribal interests had become forgotten. We must\nconfine our attention therefore to the Iliad.\n\nAs applied to the Iliad the theory was long ago seen to be open to\none serious objection. Achilles is the only one of the chief Achaean\nleaders who can be referred to Thessaly. His nearest neighbour is the\nLocrian Aias; but the Locrians, in spite of their connection with Troy,\ncannot be regarded as an Aeolic people. All the other Achaean leaders\nwho may be termed 'heroes of the first rank' belong to the southern\nand western parts of Greece. Their positions geographically cannot be\nreconciled with the theory of Aeolic tribal wars. In order to obviate\nthis difficulty various suggestions have been put forward. On the one\nhand we have Prof. Bethe's hypothesis which brings the Trojan leaders,\nHector and Paris, to the north-eastern parts of Greece. Upon this\nenough has been said above. On the other hand there is an older and\nstill very popular hypothesis, according to which some of the southern\nleaders, Agamemnon in particular, originally belonged to the northern\nparts of the country. It is to this that we must now turn our attention.\n\nIn the Iliad Mycenae is represented as being the home of Agamemnon.\nBut it has been observed that this place is comparatively seldom\nmentioned, and that sometimes Agamemnon is said to rule over 'Argos.'\nUnfortunately there is a considerable amount of ambiguity in the use\nof the latter name. Occasionally it denotes the well-known city in\nArgolis; but more often it is clearly used in a much wider sense, for\nthe Peloponnesos or the whole of Greece. Once however (II 681) we find\nthe expression \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 as a name for the home of Achilles.\nIn ancient times the meaning of this expression was not known. Some\nauthorities believed it to be the name of a city, while others\nunderstood it as a designation for the plain of Thessaly. Many modern\nscholars have adopted the latter interpretation. But further, they\nhold that this was the original Argos, and that the application of that\nname to the Peloponnesos or any part of it is due to a misunderstanding\non the part of later (Ionic) poets, by whose time the northern Argos\nhad been forgotten.\n\nIn favour of this view Prof. Cauer[420] brings forward the following\narguments. \"If Agamemnon, as well as Achilles, belongs to the oldest\nelements in the story, he also must come from a land in which Aeolic\nwas spoken; and indeed not Aeolic in the extended sense which the\nancients gave the term--where the name includes Elean and Arcadian--but\nLesbian-Aeolic. This was, as inscriptions show, the language of the\noriginal inhabitants of Thessaly.\" Again \"Agamemnon started with his\nfleet from Aulis.... He was associated with Achilles in the story from\nthe beginning. His Argeioi are the companions of the Achaeans led by\nAchilles. The two tribal names are used for one another indifferently,\nand either of them can be employed as a designation for the forces\nwhich fought at Troy. Consequently the Argeioi and the Achaeans\nmust have been neighbours.\" Further, it is urged by Prof. Cauer\nthat the epithet \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd as applied to the Peloponnesian Argos is\ninappropriate. This state possessed no cavalry in the fifth century,\nand none of consequence at any time. On the other hand it is a very\nsuitable epithet for the plain of the Peneios; Thessalian cavalry were\nfamous. Lastly, it is argued that the expression \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8' (\u1f00\u03bd') \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, which occurs four times in the Odyssey, must originally\nhave denoted two neighbouring districts, though in the passages in\nquestion it is used in a very wide sense--perhaps for all Greece.\n\nThe last argument does not seem to me to have any decisive bearing\nupon the question under discussion. If we admit, as I think we must,\nthat Homeric poetry is essentially Aeolic and that Aeolis was settled\nmainly from Thessaly, it is only natural that the poems should preserve\ntraces of traditional Thessalian phraseology, just as they preserve\npoetic conceptions which must have originated in the same country.\nBut, though we grant that the phrases in question may possibly have\nbeen used originally of the Thessalian Argos mentioned in II 681, we\nare not bound thereby to conclude that this was the only Argos known\nto the earliest poems on the siege of Troy. Again, it is scarcely\ninconceivable that the traditional epithet \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd may have been\ntransferred from one Argos to the other, though on the other hand there\nseems to be good reason for doubting whether the application of this\nterm to the Peloponnesian Argos is as much out of place as has been\nalleged[421]. Still less cogent is the argument relating to Aulis. For\nthe assembling of such a fleet as the story describes the choice of a\nconvenient central position in sheltered waters would be suggested by\nthe most elementary notions of strategy.\n\nAll these however are comparatively minor considerations. I doubt if\nthey would have been seriously brought forward except as reinforcements\nto the main contention--viz. that Agamemnon, like Achilles, must have\ncome from an Aeolic district, if he belongs to the oldest elements in\nthe story. It is surprising to see how this principle appears to have\ncommanded the assent of Homeric scholars. To anyone who has made a\nstudy of Teutonic heroic poetry such an argument seems nothing less\nthan absurd. Out of 132 personal names which occur in the Anglo-Saxon\nheroic poems only three or four, so far as we know, belong to persons\nof English nationality (cf. p. 32 ff.). Beowulf is concerned almost\nexclusively with the doings of princes of the Danes, G\u00f6tar and Swedes.\nIn Waldhere, another English poem, the characters are Burgundians and\n(perhaps) Franks; in the German Hildebrandslied they are apparently\nGoths. The Norse poems of the Older Edda are occupied chiefly with the\nadventures of Huns, Burgundians and Goths. What need then is there\nfor supposing that Agamemnon must have belonged to the same branch\nof the Greek race as Achilles? And what need is there for supposing\nthat an Aeolic poem must contain any Aeolic characters at all? In the\nOdyssey it is not the case. In the Iliad, as we have it, only a small\nproportion of the characters at most can be regarded as Aeolic[422].\n\nThe reason why Agamemnon must belong to an Aeolic district is\nclearly to be found in the assumption that both he and Achilles were\noriginally not individuals but personifications of tribes. Starting\nfrom this assumption we become involved in a series of hypotheses each\nof which is dependent upon the preceding one. i. The sources of the\nIliad were concerned only, or at least chiefly, with the fortunes of\ntribes (though in point of fact the Iliad, as it stands, is concerned\nonly with the fortunes of individuals). ii. These tribes belonged\nto adjacent districts (though in fact the heroes of the Iliad are\nrepresented as coming from nearly all parts of Greece). iii. Since\nAchilles belongs to an Aeolic district, Agamemnon and the Argos over\nwhich he rules must be located in the same quarter. But the third\nhypothesis is by no means the only one which is dependent upon the\nsecond. Menelaos must have been transferred from the north, i.e. from\nThessaly, with his brother. Again, Pylos lies far away from any Aeolic\ndistrict. Here we have a choice between two hypotheses. Some hold that\nNestor, like Agamemnon, belonged originally to Thessaly (the district\nof the river Enipeus); others that he is a late and Ionic addition\nto the story. With Diomedes the case is somewhat similar. He cannot\nhave ruled over Argos even in the second stage of the story; for then,\nbefore Mycenae was introduced, Argos belonged to Agamemnon. Either\nthen he has been transferred from Aetolia, the home of his ancestors;\nor he is a late addition, due to Ionic poets. Again, Idomeneus' case\nis due to 'attraction'; originally he belonged to quite a different\ncycle of story, like Tlepolemos. Aias, the son of Telamon, is clearly\na 'doublet' of the Locrian Aias; and so forth. By this process we are\nenabled to dispose satisfactorily of all the southern Greek heroes.\n\nIt will be seen that according to some scholars only a few of the\nleading heroes belonged to the original form of the story, and that\ntheir number has grown by gradual accretions. According to others the\nmajority were there from the beginning; but they belonged originally\nto the northern parts of Greece, more especially the Aeolic districts.\nWith reference to this latter view it may be observed that the Aeolic\ndistricts are by no means unrepresented in the Iliad as we have it.\nOn the contrary we find a considerable number of leaders both from\nThessaly and Boeotia; but they are all what we may term 'heroes of the\nsecond rank.' Are we to suppose that these are 'Ionic' substitutions\nfor the original heroes, when the latter were transferred to the\nsouthern parts of Greece?\n\nBut we have yet to consider a more important question than this. In\nthe Iliad itself only two of the leading heroes, namely Achilles and\nthe Locrian Aias, are represented as coming from the northern parts\nof Greece. But the Locrians cannot be regarded as an Aeolic people.\nAchilles then is the only leading hero whose Aeolic nationality\nrests on any solid evidence, and it is, as we have seen, chiefly\nowing to their association with him that the same nationality is\nclaimed by hypothesis for Agamemnon and the rest. But before we bring\nour discussion to a close it will be well to ask whether Achilles'\nnationality really is established beyond question by the evidence.\n\nIt has been mentioned above that 'the Pelasgian Argos' is said to be\nthe home of Achilles, though unfortunately neither ancient nor modern\nscholars have been able to determine with certainty what is meant by\nthat name. Of the other places recorded in the same context (Il. II 681\nff.[423])--viz. Alos, Alope, Trechis, Phthia and Hellas--all except the\nthird are involved in somewhat similar obscurity. Phthia--whether it\nbe a city or a district--was generally located between Mt Othrys and\nthe Malian Gulf. Hellas was believed to be in the same neighbourhood,\nif not actually identical with Phthia; some placed it on the north\nside of Othrys, a short distance away. The names \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f08\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7 were\nborne in historical times by places in Locris, and also by other places\nin Phthiotis, on the Pagasean Gulf and the Malian Gulf respectively.\nOpinion was divided as to which of these were the places mentioned in\nthe Iliad. Trechis (Trachis) lay on the south of the Spercheios.\n\nIt must not be overlooked that, except the indefinite Hellas and\nPhthia, all these places, including 'the Pelasgian Argos,' are\nmentioned only in the Catalogue of Ships, a section of the poem which\nis commonly regarded with very little respect. Indeed the same scholars\nwho lay so much stress upon the Pelasgian Argos as the home of Achilles\nhave no hesitation about rejecting the evidence of the Catalogue as\nto the homes of Agamemnon, Menelaos, Nestor, Diomedes and others.\nYet the Thessalian section of the Catalogue is admittedly far more\ndifficult to understand than any other. It is scarcely credible that\nthe poet responsible for it can have been personally acquainted with\nthe places he was enumerating. Now in other parts of the poem Achilles\nand his followers are associated with the Spercheios or Ellada; from\nXVI 173 ff., XXIII 144 ff. it is quite clear that his home was supposed\nto be in the immediate neighbourhood of that river. According to\nIX 484 his vassal Phoinix rules over the Dolopes, a people who, at\nleast in historical times, inhabited the mountainous country to the\nnorth-west[424]. These indications, it will be seen, agree perfectly\nwell with the only place in the Catalogue which can be identified with\ncertainty, namely Trechis. On the whole also they favour the view that\n'Alope' is the Phthiotic Alope. Achilles' country then is the basin of\nthe Spercheios, together probably with the coast lands on the Malian\nGulf between the mountains of Oite and Othrys. It may have included the\nnorthern slopes of the latter, in the territory of the Dolopes; but\nneither the evidence of the Catalogue itself nor references in other\nparts of the Iliad give us any warrant for supposing that it extended\ninto the plain of Larissa[425].\n\nNow there is not a particle of evidence that an Aeolic dialect was\never spoken either in the basin of the Spercheios or in the districts\nbordering on the coasts of the Malian Gulf. A form (\u039c\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) which may\nbe an Aeolic patronymic occurs in an inscription from Melitaia[426];\nbut the inscription in other respects is definitely non-Aeolic,\nalthough Melitaia lies to the north of Othrys. A similar form\n(\u0395\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1) occurs in an inscription found near Pteleon[427], which\nis too short for us to determine its character; but Pteleon lies in\nthe extreme east of Phthiotis, outside the Malian Gulf, and according\nto the Catalogue belonged to Protesilaos. The only inscription of\ndefinitely Aeolic (Thessalian) character as yet found in Phthiotis\ncomes from near Eretria, just inside the boundary. This place is not\nmentioned in the Catalogue, or elsewhere in the Iliad; but Strabo\n(IX 5. 10) conjectured that it belonged to Achilles' territories. If\nwe are to follow the indications given by the Catalogue the question\nwould seem to lie between the territories of Protesilaos and those of\nEurypylos; there is nothing to show that Achilles' country was believed\nto extend so far. It is most surprising therefore to find Prof.\nCauer[428] concluding from such evidence as this that \"we are justified\nin claiming the valley of the Spercheios also as an Aeolic district and\nAchilles as a hero of Aeolic nationality.\"\n\nFor the language of Achilles' country itself we are by no means without\nevidence. Fairly long inscriptions have been found at Hypate in the\nvalley of the Spercheios and at Lamia, to the north of the Malian\nGulf--to which may be added an inscription, apparently of the Oitaioi,\nat Drymaia in Phocis. All these show the form of language usually known\nas 'north-west Greek,' and the same is true of other inscriptions found\nin the north and east of Phthiotis. Although they are all late, there\nis no valid reason for doubting that this language is indigenous[429].\nOnly two inscriptions[430], so far as I know, contain references to\nAetolian magistrates. The dialect is almost identical not only with\nthat of the Aetolian inscriptions, but also with those of the Locrians\nand Phocians, the former of which is well known from much earlier\ntimes. Greek communities as a general rule were slow to change their\nlanguage, and the influence of the Aetolian League was scarcely of such\na character as to favour the permanent extension of its dialect[431].\n\nIf we are to trust all the evidence which we possess Othrys, and not\nOite, was the southern limit of the Aeolic (Thessalian) dialect. The\ncommunities of Phthiotis were politically dependent upon Thessaly,\nbut they seem never to have been subjugated in the same way as\nthe Aeolic population north of the mountains[432]. They had their\nown troops and sent a separate contingent to Xerxes' army. Indeed\nHerodotus (VII 173, 196 ff.) clearly distinguishes between 'Thessaly'\nand 'Achaia' (i.e. Phthiotis). Moreover it appears to have been the\ngeneral opinion among the Greeks themselves that this district was\nthe original home of the Achaeans of the Peloponnesos. Pausanias (VII\n1. 6) traces the Peloponnesian Achaeans to Archandros and Architeles,\nthe sons of Achaios, who had come from Phthiotis[433]. Herodotus (II\n98) was evidently familiar with some form of this story, though he\ncalls Archandros son of Phthios and grandson of Achaios. The supposed\nconnection therefore goes back at least to the fifth century. How far\nthese genealogies were constructed upon linguistic affinities is a\nquestion which needs some discussion. We may remark in passing however\nthat the dialect of the Peloponnesian Achaia, so far as it is known to\nus[434], shows but little difference from the dialects north of the\nGulf of Corinth. It is commonly included in the list of 'north-west\nGreek' dialects.\n\nIn the meantime we may notice an argument which has sometimes been\nbrought forward in support of the hypothesis that Aeolic was once\nspoken much further south. This is the presence of an Aeolic or\nsemi-Aeolic form of language in Boeotia. The ancients themselves\nbelieved that the Boeotians were not indigenous. Thucydides (I 12)\nstates that they had been expelled by the Thessalians from 'Arne'\nafter the Trojan War; but this was not the only form of the story. On\nthe other hand many modern scholars have adopted the view that the\n'north-western' dialects of Locris and Phocis were intrusive[435], and\nthat the non-Aeolic characteristics of the Boeotian dialect itself\nwere due to an extension of the same movement--in short that Aeolic\nwas the earliest form of Greek spoken throughout the whole region\nfrom Thessaly down to the borders of Attica. For such a displacement\nof population[436] no evidence is to be found either in history or\ntradition. Moreover this hypothesis has opposed to it the evidence of\nwhat may be called linguistic geography. The Ionic dialects of Euboea\nand Attica have much more in common with the 'north-western' dialects\nof Locris and Phocis than they have with Boeotian. The latter indeed\nstands quite isolated in many respects among the dialects of this part\nof Greece. It will be sufficient here to notice the close pronunciation\nof _\u0113_ (e.g. in Gen. sg. \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2) and the open pronunciation of _\u014f_\n(e.g. in Acc. pl. \u03c4\u03ce\u03c2)--both of which are probably to be regarded\nas Aeolic characteristics--the use of Aeolic patronymics in _-ios_\n(e.g. \u1f3d\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) and more especially the Aeolic tendency\nto change labiovelar explosives into labials before _\u0113\u0306_, which we\nfind exemplified at both extremities of the Boeotian area (\u0392\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03af,\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2). The last peculiarity is doubtless one of the earliest\ncases of dialectal variation which can be traced in the Greek language;\nbut it is impossible to date. All this evidence tends to show that\nAeolic was the intrusive element--in other words, to confirm the\ntradition that Boeotia was at some time invaded by settlers from an\nAeolic-speaking district[437].\n\nIn recent years there has been a tendency to classify the Greek\ndialects in two main groups--'East Greek' and 'West Greek.' In the\nformer are included Arcadian, Cypriot, Ionic (with Attic) and the\nAeolic dialects, i.e. Thessalian and Lesbian-Aeolic, together with the\nAeolic element in Boeotian. To the latter are referred the remaining\ndialects, i.e. the Doric dialects and all the dialects of the mainland\nof Greece except Arcadian, Attic, Thessalian and Boeotian, so far as\nBoeotian can be regarded as Aeolic. It may be doubted whether this\nclassification is altogether satisfactory, since the affinities of\nAeolic with Ionic and Arcadian are by no means close; as much perhaps\nmight be said for a division into 'North Greek' (Aeolic) and 'South\nGreek' (non-Aeolic). But there can be no doubt that the 'West Greek'\ndialects, i.e. Doric and north-western Greek, except perhaps Elean, do\nreally form a homogeneous group. Indeed it can hardly be maintained\nthat the Doric dialects as a whole show any divergence from the other\nmembers of the group[438], though there are marked differences between\none Doric dialect and another. It is this West Greek group which\nspecially requires our attention, for according to all the evidence we\npossess it included the dialects of both the Phthiotic Achaeans and the\nPeloponnesian Achaeans.\n\nNow let us return to the genealogical problem. We have seen that\nHerodotus was familiar with a story which traced the descent of the\nPeloponnesian Achaeans from Phthios the son of Achaios. The same writer\nelsewhere (I 56, etc.) draws a distinction between 'Hellenic' and\n'Pelasgian' peoples. Among the former he includes the Dorians; among\nthe latter the Athenians (I 56, VIII 44), the Ionians (VII 94), the\nArcadians (I 146) and the Aeolians (VII 95). By \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03b5\u03c2 he means here\nthe inhabitants of the Asiatic Aeolis. But in view of other passages (I\n57, VII 176) it can scarcely be doubted that he would have included the\nearlier population of Thessaly in the same category.\n\nNow Herodotus himself believed the Pelasgoi to have been a barbarous\nnation. The peoples of whom he is speaking here were regarded by\nhim as 'Hellenized' Pelasgoi. Some modern writers think that he was\nmistaken in this view, and that the Pelasgoi were a Greek people from\nthe beginning[439]. Some hold also that the term \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u03af in most of\nthese cases is due simply to the influence of genealogies[440]. It is\na serious objection to this latter view that the well-known genealogy\nin which the descent of Ion, as well as Aiolos, is traced from Hellen,\ngoes back at least two or three centuries before the time of Herodotus.\nBut we are not primarily concerned here with Herodotus' opinions;\nfor it is clear from the expressions which he uses (e.g. VII 95: \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u1f76, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) that the distinction\nbetween \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u03af and \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 was one which was generally recognised in\nhis time. Some of his contemporaries may have regarded the Pelasgoi\nas Greeks, others as barbarians. What was generally agreed was that\nthe term \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 was originally applied only to a portion of the\ninhabitants of Greece. We may refer to Thucydides (I 3[441]): \"The\ndifferent tribes, of which the Pelasgian was the most widely spread,\ngave their own names to different districts. But when Hellen and his\nsons became powerful in Phthiotis, their aid was invoked by other\ncities, and those who were associated with them gradually began to be\ncalled Hellenes, though a long time elapsed before the name prevailed\nover the whole country. Of this Homer affords the best evidence;\nfor he, although he lived long after the Trojan War, nowhere uses\nthis name collectively, but confines it to the followers of Achilles\nfrom Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes.\" In a certain sense\ntherefore we may regard \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03bf\u03af as a term of negative value, i.e.\n'non-Hellenic.'\n\nHerodotus does not expressly describe any people as 'Hellenic,' in the\nnarrower sense, except the Dorians. But we are surely not justified\nin concluding from this that he regarded the Dorians as the only true\nHellenes[442]. He is interested in pointing out that certain Greek\n(Hellenic) peoples were believed to be of Pelasgian origin. Doubtless\nhe considered it unnecessary to say that those for whom no such origin\nwas claimed were really Hellenes, except in such a passage as I 56,\nwhere a 'Hellenic' and a 'Pelasgian' people are specially contrasted\nwith each other. In general then the presumption is rather that a\npeople was believed to be truly Hellenic, unless we have a statement to\nthe contrary. In particular however it is incredible that the Achaeans\nwere regarded as Pelasgian, for it was in the Achaean Phthiotis--more\nproperly perhaps in 'Phthia'--that traditional belief located the\neponymous Hellen. Thucydides, as we have seen, observes that this\nbelief was confirmed by the evidence of the Homeric poems. The term\n'Hellenic' belongs essentially to the followers of Achilles (\u03bf\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd).\n\nIt can hardly be contended either that the story of Hellen is derived\nfrom the Homeric usage, or that the Homeric usage is derived from\nthe story of Hellen. Both alike are based on the common knowledge or\nbelief that the names \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 and \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2 belonged originally to Phthia.\nIt is not difficult to see why names from such a district, obscure\nand remote as it was, should come to be applied to the whole nation.\nThe valley of the Spercheios was regarded as the gate of Greece.\nCertain peoples, such as the Boeotians and Eleans, may have come into\npossession of their territories by maritime invasions. But there can\nbe little doubt that in prehistoric, as in historical times--we may\nrefer to the Persians and the Gauls--great invasions usually made\ntheir way through the pass of Thermopylai. That is true probably not\nonly of the later invasions of the 'West Greek' peoples (the Achaeans,\nLocrians, Dorians, etc.) but also of those much earlier movements by\nwhich the first Greek populations--the ancestors of the Ionians and\nArcadians--were introduced into the peninsula. But if we are to trust\nall the evidence at our disposal it was with the later movements that\nthe names \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2[443] and \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2[444] were originally connected.\n\nThe results of our discussion may now be summarised as follows: (i)\nAccording to current hypotheses the language of the Achaeans of\nPhthiotis was Aeolic, while that of the Peloponnesian Achaeans was\nperhaps Arcadian; but in point of fact all the linguistic evidence\nwhich we have from both districts (including the colonies of the\nPeloponnesian Achaeans) is definitely West Greek. In all probability\nthe valley of the Spercheios was one of the first, if not actually the\nvery first, of the districts occupied by the West Greeks in the eastern\nand southern parts of the peninsula. (ii) According to a belief current\nin the fifth century certain Greek peoples were truly 'Hellenic,' while\nothers were of 'Pelasgian' origin. The former category coincided,\nat least to a large extent, with the 'West Greek' linguistic\ndivision, the latter with the 'East Greek' division, or--to speak\nmore accurately--with the northern, eastern and southern groups of\ndialects. In certain cases, owing to the silence of our authorities, it\nmay be permissible to doubt whether a people was regarded as 'Hellenic'\nor 'Pelasgian'; but no such doubt applies to the followers of Achilles,\n'who were the original Hellenes.' It was in Phthia that much earlier\ntradition located the eponymous Hellen; and from the same district\ncame Archandros and Architeles, the legendary progenitors of the\nPeloponnesian Achaeans, several generations before the Trojan War. It\nis clear then that the 'West Greek' language of the extant inscriptions\nis in perfect agreement with the belief of the fifth century Greeks\nthat this community was essentially Hellenic. We may dismiss therefore\nas totally without foundation the hypothesis that Achilles was an\nAeolic (or Pelasgian) hero[445].\n\nNow let us drop hypotheses and consider briefly the evidence actually\nfurnished by the Iliad. The poem leaves us in no doubt as to who are\nregarded as the principal persons in the Achaean army. In II 404 ff.\nAgamemnon is represented as calling together \"the elders, the chiefs of\nthe whole Achaean host\" (\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd). They are Nestor,\nIdomeneus, Aias the son of Telamon and his Locrian namesake, Diomedes,\nOdysseus and Menelaos. In another council (X 194 ff.) we find the same\nparty together with three additional persons, Thrasymedes, Meriones and\nMeges. In the debates, which occur so frequently, the leading speakers\nare almost always Agamemnon, Nestor, Diomedes, Odysseus and Menelaos.\nIn the battle scenes the aged Nestor naturally does not play an active\npart. The other four heroes however, together with Idomeneus, Aias the\nson of Telamon and (to a somewhat less extent) the Locrian Aias, are by\nfar the most conspicuous figures in the army. In response to Hector's\nchallenge, from which Menelaos has been forced to retire, all the other\nsix come forward, together with Meriones, Eurypylos and Thoas. There\ncan be no doubt then that the eight leading men are Agamemnon and his\nbrother, Nestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus. To\nthese we must certainly add Achilles, who is in retirement throughout\nthe greater part of the poem.\n\n[Illustration: =MAP OF GREECE=\n\n=illustrating the 'Catalogue of Ships'=\n\n The numerals denote cities or territories belonging to the\n chief leaders of the Achaeans.\n\n 1. possessions of Odysseus\n 2. \" Nestor\n 3. \" Menelaos\n 4. \" Agamemnon\n 5. \" Diomedes, etc.\n 6. \" Aias son of Telamon\n 7. \" Aias son of Oileus\n 8. \" Achilles]\n\n[Illustration: =MAP OF GREECE=\n\n=showing the distribution of the dialects in historical times=\n\n Aeolic (Thessalian and Boeotian) \u25a5\n Ionic (with Attic) \u25a4\n Arcadian \u25a8\n West Greek dialects not shaded.]\n\nHypothesis after hypothesis has been tried in order to claim an Aeolic\nor Ionic origin for most of these heroes. The plain fact is that all\nexcept one[446] belong to communities which in the fifth century were\nregarded as truly 'Hellenic'--or at all events to districts where\ndialects of the West Greek type prevailed in historical times. The\nleading Aeolic hero is Eurypylos; but he ranks only with Meriones, the\nCretan second-in-command, Thoas the Aetolian and Nestor's sons. The\nother Aeolic and Ionic leaders are distinctly less prominent.\n\nFrom the evidence at our disposal it seems to me that, if the poets\nof the Iliad, or rather their predecessors, were interested in any\nnationality at all, that nationality must have been West Greek or\n'Hellenic.' Of the two chief leaders one belongs to Achaia Phthiotis,\nthe other to the Peloponnesian Achaeans; the Catalogue of Ships (Il.\nII 569 ff.) assigns to him territories which in the main coincide\nwith the later Achaia, though they cover a somewhat larger area. We\nhave scarcely any evidence worth consideration that either Achaia\nPhthiotis or the Peloponnesian Achaia was ever held by a different\nnationality within the period embraced by history and tradition[447].\nThe territories of the other chief Peloponnesian leaders were occupied\nin historical times by the Dorians. But it was the unanimous belief of\nthe ancient world that the Dorian period had been preceded by an age\nof Achaean domination in the east, south and west of the peninsula.\nLastly, the Odyssey (XIX 175), in a passage which is commonly believed\nto preserve a true ethnographical record, speaks of the presence\nof Achaeans in Crete. Thus at least six[448] of the nine principal\nleaders come from regions with an Achaean population. In view of this\nfact is it any wonder that \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af is by far the commonest term applied\nin the poems to the Greeks collectively[449]? This then must be the\nnationality in which the poets were interested. But the Achaeans of\nhistorical times, as we have seen, everywhere used a form of language\nwhich is West Greek. Moreover, it is to the northern Achaeans that we\nfirst find the name \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 applied (Il. II 684). The facts noted seem\nto indicate that the Achaeans were the dominant people of the West\nGreeks--indeed, we may say, of the Greeks generally--during the Heroic\nAge, a position in which they were eventually succeeded by the Dorians.\n\nBut the poems themselves are of Aeolic origin. It is this\nfact--supported by speculations of writers of the Roman period, who\nincluded under the term 'Aeolic' every dialect not obviously Doric,\nIonic or Attic[450]--which has led to the unfortunate equation\n'Achaean' = 'Aeolic.' In reality the heroes and the poems belong to\ntwo entirely different sections of the Greek nation. Shall we then set\nup another hypothesis--that the original poems were Achaean? But then\nwe should only be repeating the old error of building hypothesis upon\nhypothesis. For it is a hypothesis, and nothing more, that the original\npoems were concerned with tribal or national interests; the poems which\nhave come down to us deal with the fortunes of individuals. Moreover\nwe should not thereby save the theory that the Iliad is a reflection\nof the Greek settlement of the north-western coast of Asia Minor; for\nthat settlement was not Achaean but Aeolic. The truth is that the\ninitial hypothesis is entirely unjustified. We have no more reason for\nsupposing that the heroes must be Aeolic if the poems are Aeolic--or\nthat the poems must be Achaean if the heroes are Achaean--than we have\nfor assuming that the Anglo-Saxon poems were of Danish or Gothic origin\nbecause Danes and Goths figure in them more prominently than persons\nof English nationality. It is likely enough that poems once existed\ndealing with Aeolic heroes, such as Iason, perhaps also Peirithoos and\nothers. But the reason for the prominence assigned to Achaean heroes,\nat all events in the poems which have survived, is to be found not in\nthe national sympathies or interests of the poets, but in the fact that\nduring the Heroic Age the Achaeans were the dominant people in Greece.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[401] Achilles himself was worshipped as a deity in certain localities;\nand the same is true of some other heroes. We may refer to the story of\nSt Ansgar, quoted above (p. 255 f.). With such cases as that of 'Zeus\nAgamemnon' we shall have to deal later.\n\n[402] According to V\u00f6lsunga Saga, cap. 2, Sigmundr, the father of\nSigur\u00f0r, had a divine mother (cf. p. 114).\n\n[403] Some resemblance to the case of Peleus and Thetis is shown\nby a story in Hr\u00f3lfs S. Kraka, cap. 15, where an elf-woman bears a\ndaughter to Helgi, the father of Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki. Such incidents are not\nuncommon in folk-tales. We may note especially those cases in which the\nsupernatural bride is a mermaid, perhaps representing the Swan-maiden\nof earlier times. Thetis has a good deal in common with the latter\nclass of beings.\n\n[404] Cf. Aeneas Sylvius, _Hist. de Eur._, cap. 26, and the first Daina\nin Schleicher's _Handb. d. litau. Sprache_. Night and day or dawn are\nalso frequently personified--the last especially where, as in Greece,\nthe sun is regarded as a male. But none of these lend themselves so\nreadily as the sun and moon to the development of mythical stories.\nThe personification of light, darkness, etc. in the abstract seems to\nbelong to a much more advanced stage of thought.\n\n[405] Eclipse-myths (usually of a simple character) are widespread and\nfairly common. A probable example is to be found in Gylfaginning, cap.\n12 (cf. also Tylor, _Primitive Culture_\u2074, I p. 328 ff.). But a good\ndeal of scepticism is justifiable in regard to the interpretation of\nstories which are supposed to have originated in myths of sunrise and\nsunset. This remark applies even to those Polynesian and Red Indian\nstories which are commonly regarded as among the best examples of their\nclass.\n\n[406] The personification of the sun and the dawn in the Homeric\npoems is very similar to what we find in the north of Europe, e.g. in\nGylfaginning, cap. 10 f., and the first four Dainos in Schleicher's\n_Handbuch_. The most important difference is that the Dawn-goddess,\nlike other deities, has sexual relations with mortals (see the\nAddenda). But her true character is not for a moment forgotten.\n\n[407] There is probably an allusion to this story in Il. III 144,\nalthough a different explanation is quoted by Plutarch (_Theseus_,\ncap. 34) from Istros. But the verse in question was condemned by some\nancient, as well as modern, scholars. It is 'inorganic' (cf. Od. II\n331) and due in all probability to the same process as Il. II 831 ff.\n(cf p. 244, note).\n\n[408] This list is by no means exhaustive. We may mention also the\nstory of Helen and Achilles in the 'White Isle' (cf. Pausanias III\n19. 11) and that of Ariston's wife, related by Herodotus (VI 61). The\nRhodian story (cf. Paus. III 19. 10) is obviously due in part to the\ninfluence of the Homeric poems; but it is at least questionable whether\nthis \u1f19\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u0394\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 was originally identical with the other Helen.\n\n[409] Attention should be paid not only to the case of the Leucippides\nbut also to the story of Phormion (Paus. III 16. 3).\n\n[410] In Il. II 828 ff. (if the name \u1f0c\u03b4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is taken from VI 37\nff. or XVI 694) we have apparently the case of an already existing\ncharacter being turned to account as an eponymous hero.\n\n[411] \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 occurs occasionally as a patronymic for individuals. The\n'keeper of the winds' seems to have no connection with these characters.\n\n[412] In the Homeric poems it is in the case of minor characters\namong the Trojans and their allies that names of this type are most\ncommon. In this case the use of such names may be accounted for with\nconsiderable probability under the head of fiction (cf. p. 300, note).\n\n[413] Murray, _Rise of the Greek Epic_, p. 197 (from Bethe, _N.\nJahrb._, VII 672).\n\n[414] Cf. Crusius, _S.-B. d. k. bayer. Akad._, 1905, p. 774 f.\n\n[415] Cf. Br\u00fcckner, _Troja und Ilion_, p. 557 ff.\n\n[416] Cf. Crusius, _op. cit._, p. 761 ff.\n\n[417] As a matter of fact the name Melanippos is borne by three Trojans\nand one Achaean in the Iliad. Nothing is stated regarding the home of\nthe Achaean. The name Orestes is borne by one Trojan and one Achaean,\nbesides the son of Agamemnon.\n\n[418] I have dealt with only one of the groups of names treated by\nProf. Bethe; but it is the one which he has discussed most fully. A\nsecond (Laconian) group is treated by him on p. 672 f. On this it\nwill be sufficient here to refer to Crusius, _op. cit._, p. 771 ff.,\nwhere it is pointed out that the chief argument rests apparently on a\nmistranslation.\n\n[419] Cf. _Neue Jahrb._, VII 662-9; XIII 2 ff.\n\n[420] _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_\u00b2, p. 223 ff.\n\n[421] Cf. Crusius, _S. B. der k. bayer. Akad._, 1905, p. 755 ff.\n\n[422] It must be clearly understood that I am using the term 'Aeolic'\nin the modern (linguistic) sense. I am under the impression that Prof.\nCauer uses the term in the same sense. The only difference, so far as\nI can see, between his terminology and mine is that--in accordance,\nI think, with general usage--I would include Boeotian as well as\nThessalian and Lesbian-Aeolic in this category. Some ancient writers of\ncourse use the terms \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 and \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c2 in a totally different sense.\nThus Thucydides (III 102) applies the name \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c2 to the district\nabout Pleuron and Calydon, and again (IV 42) he speaks of the ancient\ninhabitants of Corinth as \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2. There may be some difference of\nopinion as to whether the use of these names in such cases is due to\nthe influence of genealogies--in the former case through Aethlios and\nEndymion, in the latter through Sisyphos--or whether the genealogies\nthemselves are due to a current use of the names \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03c2, etc.\nThe form \u0391\u1f30\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 in Il. VI 154, Od. XI 237 rather suggests that these\nnames may have belonged to a family (or possibly a clan) before they\ncame to be applied to a people; but into this question we need not\nenter. The term 'Aeolic' (in its linguistic sense) belongs properly to\nthe Asiatic Aeolis, and this name itself is derived in all probability\nfrom the Thessalian Aeolis (cf. Herod. VII 176), the fatherland of the\nAsiatic Aeolians. There may possibly have been some connection between\nthe reigning families of the Thessalian Aeolis and those at Calydon,\nCorinth and elsewhere which claimed descent from Aiolos; but there is\nnot the slightest evidence that an Aeolic dialect (in the modern sense)\nwas ever spoken at either Calydon or Corinth. It may be added that\nnothing but confusion of thought can arise from introducing into this\ndiscussion the terminology of writers of the Roman age (cf. especially\nStrabo VIII 1. 2), who apply the name 'Aeolic' to every dialect which\nis not Attic, Ionic or Doric.\n\n[423]\n\n \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f56 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4' \u1f0c\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4' \u1f08\u03bb\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c7\u1fd6\u03bd' \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf,\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03c4' \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03a6\u03b8\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f20\u03b4' \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nIn v. 681 Zenodotos read:\n\n \u03bf\u1f35 \u03b4' \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4' \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f56\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[424] This passage seems to indicate that the poet included the basin\nof the Spercheios in Phthia.\n\n[425] So far as I can see, the identification of 'the Pelasgian Argos'\nwith the plain of Larissa rests merely on a conjecture, of the truth of\nwhich even Strabo himself (IX 5. 5) was not confident. It may very well\nhave been suggested by the name (Pelasgiotis) borne by this district in\nlater times. The oracle quoted by Prof. Meyer (_Forsch._, p. 30, note\n1) proves nothing, and there is no evidence that the name was used in\nhistorical times. On the other hand the fact that the citadel of the\nPeloponnesian Argos was called \u039b\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 (cf. Pausanias II 24. 1) does\nsuggest a connection between this name and \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. But if so, it is more\nnatural to think of Larissa Cremaste, which according to Strabo (IX\n5. 13, 19) was also called Pelasgia. This place is much nearer to the\nSpercheios than the northern Larissa, and in spite of Strabo (IX 5. 14)\nmay quite possibly have been included within the same territory.\n\n[426] Cauer, _Delectus_, No. 388.\n\n[427] _ib._, No. 390.\n\n[428] _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_\u00b2, p. 214.\n\n[429] By this of course I do not mean that the inscriptions give an\nabsolutely faithful reproduction of the local pronunciation, any\nmore than do those of the Aetolians. From the fourth century onwards\n'phonetic spelling' appears to have been superseded in most parts of\nGreece. No earlier inscriptions, representing the Achaean dialect\nin its purity, have been found as yet. From Thetonion however, near\nCierion in Thessaliotis, about twenty miles north of the border, we\nhave an inscription of the fifth century (_C. I. G._, XII ii 257)\nin a curious mixed dialect, which combines north-western Greek and\nThessalian (Aeolic) characteristics in the proportion of about 7:3 (or\n4). The evidence of this inscription seems to me to dispose definitely\nof the hypothesis that the introduction of north-western Greek into\nthis region was due to the influence of the Aetolian League. Even the\ndialect of Pharsalos is not quite pure Thessalian.\n\n[430] Cauer, _Delectus_\u00b2, Nos. 239, 386. The former is included by\nProf. Cauer, no doubt rightly, among the Aetolian inscriptions.\n\n[431] The extension of the Dat. pl. ending -\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 to consonant-stems etc.\nhas often been quoted as a mark of Aetolian influence. But in reality\nit is common to all the dialects of western Greece. The earliest\nexamples apparently occur in Elean and Locrian inscriptions.\n\n[432] According to the generally accepted view, which there seems to\nbe no reason for doubting, the language of the Thessalian (Aeolic or\n'North-Thessalian') inscriptions belonged originally to the indigenous\npopulation. The name 'Thessalian' however, properly speaking, belonged\nto the invaders, regarding whose language we have no information.\n\n[433] Strabo (VIII 5. 5) likewise connects the Peloponnesian Achaeans\nwith Phthiotis; but he attributes their settlement in the Peloponnesos\nto an invasion by Pelops. In this passage (as in many others) it is\ngreatly to be questioned whether Strabo (or the authority whom he\nfollowed) was recording genuine tradition--whether he was not rather\nendeavouring to provide an explanation of the traditions.\n\n[434] The inscriptions are late; but their evidence as to the\ngeneral character of the dialect is confirmed by some short but\nearly inscriptions from the Achaean settlements in Italy. It is\nassumed by many scholars that Arcadian was the original language of\nthe Peloponnesian Achaeans; but I am not aware that any evidence\nworth consideration has been adduced in support of this view. No\nancient authorities, so far as I know, connect the Arcadians with the\nAchaeans, nor do the Arcadians themselves appear to have claimed such a\nconnection.\n\n[435] This theory is of course quite distinct from the theory which\ntraces the language of the Phthiotic inscriptions to the influence of\nthe Aetolian League. The two are scarcely reconcilable if it be held\nthat the Locrians and Phocians came from the north-west; for in that\ncase their route must have lain through the valley of the Spercheios,\na district which would not readily be neglected by peoples seeking new\nterritories.\n\n[436] I.e. in times subsequent to the Heroic Age. I do not mean\nof course to suggest that the north-west Greek dialects belonged\noriginally to these districts; but I see no reason for supposing\nthat the previous language was Aeolic. The Ainianes may have moved\nsouthwards later. But the language of their inscriptions (at Hypate)\nis indistinguishable from that of the surrounding peoples. It is to be\nremembered also that, according to the common tradition, the Dorians\nthemselves had come from a district within this area.\n\n[437] It may be added that the fertile plains of Boeotia are more\nlikely to have attracted invaders than the mountainous lands to the\nnorth-west.\n\n[438] Cf. Meister, _S\u00e4chs. Ges. d. Wiss. Abhandl._ 1906, Nr. 3,\nsummarised p. 96 ff., where it is pointed out that the characteristics\ncommonly described as Dorian belong in reality also to Achaean and\nthat in general they are rather to be ascribed to the latter. At the\nsame time it is to be noted that some of the characteristics here\nclaimed as specifically Dorian are shared also by Cypriot, a fact\nwhich rather suggests that they may be indigenous to the south-east\nof the Peloponnesos. If the Dorians came from the same quarter as the\nAchaeans--and not very many generations later--it is intelligible\nenough that the two groups of dialects should be difficult to\ndistinguish, even apart from the fact that an Achaean stratum--however\ninsignificant numerically--underlies the Dorian practically everywhere.\n\n[439] Cf. especially Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II p. 55 f.,\n_Forsch. zur alten Geschichte_, I p. 112 ff.; Ridgeway, _Early Age of\nGreece_, p. 659 ff., etc.; Kretschmer, _Glotta_, I 17 ff. Prof. Meyer\nhas subsequently abandoned this view (_Gesch. d. Alt._\u00b2, I p. 687).\n\n[440] Cf. Meyer, _Forsch._ I (_passim_). The genealogical explanation\nseems to me to be pressed too far here. The case of the Arcadians is\nthe one in which it is most probable, since apart from genealogies\nthere is no real evidence that this people was connected with the\nPelasgoi in any way. Yet even here the cause assigned (_ib._, p.\n53 ff.) is scarcely adequate. One might rather suspect a confusion\nor identification of the names \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd and \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2; but I have no\ninclination to propound a theory on the subject.\n\n[441] Quoted from Jowett's translation.\n\n[442] Cf. Meyer, _Forsch._, I p. 115; yet in another passage (_ib._,\np. 111 note) considerations are pointed out which can hardly have been\nunfamiliar to Herodotus.\n\n[443] It is to be remembered that the name \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c2 appears to\nhave come from the Achaean colonies in Italy.\n\n[444] It is worth noting that stems in _-\u0101n-_, as names of peoples,\nseem to have been specially characteristic of north-western Greek; e.g.\n\u0391\u1f30\u03bd\u03b9\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b8\u03b1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n[445] It is scarcely necessary to notice the subsidiary arguments which\nhave been adduced in favour of the hypothesis--e.g. that Achilles had\nbeen instructed by the Centaur Cheiron and that his spear had come\nfrom Pelion. They are sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the\npoems are of Aeolic origin. The suggestion that Peleus himself is the\neponymus of Pelion belongs to a class which has been sufficiently\ndiscussed above (p. 267 ff.).\n\n[446] The exceptional case is that of Aias the son of Telamon. But we\nhave no information relating to Salamis before its conquest by the\nAthenians in the sixth century. It may have been under Achaean rule in\nearly times.\n\n[447] In the case of the Peloponnesian Achaia it is conceivable that\na genuine tradition of a conquest of earlier (Ionic) inhabitants may\nbe preserved in Herod. I 145. But the story that this conquest was\nconnected with the Dorian invasion can hardly be due to anything but\n'combination'; and traces of such a process can be distinguished\nplainly enough in Herodotus' account. The important fact is that the\nauthor of the Catalogue of Ships evidently knew nothing of the story.\n\n[448] We may probably add Odysseus. In the Odyssey the hero's subjects\nare regularly described as \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af. They are not called \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 or\n\u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03af, although the three names are used interchangeably as collective\nterms for the Greek army before Troy. Regarding the national affinities\nof the inhabitants of the Ionian Isles in later times we have little\ninformation; but the language was clearly of the 'north-west Greek'\ntype. Indeed Aias the son of Oileus is the only one of the nine heroes\nin whose case Achaean nationality is distinctly improbable.\n\n[449] The figures for the Iliad are: \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af 605, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 176, \u0394\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03bf\u03af\n146; cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen_\u00b2, p. 220.\n\n[450] Cf. especially Strabo, VIII 1. 2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nFICTION IN THE HOMERIC POEMS.\n\n\nWe have now to consider briefly how far the use of fiction, i.e. of\nconscious, deliberate invention, was permitted in the composition of\nGreek heroic poetry. This question gave us considerable difficulty\nwhen we were discussing the Teutonic poems. It is assuredly not less\ndifficult here. The higher artistic level of the Greek poems cannot but\npre-dispose us in favour of the view that their use of fiction is of a\nmore advanced type. This expectation is fully realised in the elaborate\npresentation of many of the scenes, whether the actors be human beings\nwho may or may not have taken part in the events described, or divine\nbeings whose mythical origin no one will dispute. In the \u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd the art of poetic invention is developed to a high degree of\nperfection.\n\nThe chief difference between our present problem and the one which\nwe had to consider in Chapter VIII lies in the fact that here we are\nentirely without that contemporary historical evidence which enables\nus to recognise some characters or events in nearly all the Teutonic\npoems. The way lies open therefore for regarding the whole story of\nthe siege of Troy as a product of fiction; and this is a view which\nmany modern scholars have adopted. For an example we can scarcely do\nbetter than quote the words of the late Sir R. C. Jebb (_Introduction\nto Homer_, p. 147): \"The tale of Troy, as we have it in Homer, is\nessentially a poetic creation; and the poet is the sole witness.\"\nThe same scholar was prepared to grant that \"some memorable capture\nof a town in the Troad had probably been made by Greek warriors\";\nbut, he adds, \"beyond this we cannot safely go.\" This attitude is\ndoubtless perfectly correct from the historian's point of view. But\nif we approach the problem from the ethnologist's side we cannot\nrest satisfied with an attitude of scepticism owing to the absence\nof historical evidence. Our duty includes the question how far we\nare justified in admitting the use of fiction. The Iliad would still\nbe a great monument of human genius even if all the characters and\nevents in it could be proved to be historical. But if it is wholly, or\nalmost wholly, a work of fiction we shall have to conclude that the\nHomeric poets had developed the inventive faculty to a degree which has\nscarcely been equalled even in our own days. That is a conclusion which\nwe shall do well to adopt only after careful consideration, seeing\nthat we are dealing with the earliest monument of European literature.\nScepticism is required in this direction therefore just as much as in\nthe other.\n\nAt the outset we are confronted by two considerations which amply\njustify this attitude. The first is the evidence of the Teutonic poems.\nHere, as we have seen, myth and folk-tale both play their parts, the\nlatter often a very important part. But we have no proof that any one\nof the stories is a product of conscious fiction. Wherever we can\nput it to the test, the setting is found to be historical, at least\nin the earlier forms of the stories. In medieval poetry we meet with\nmany fictitious stories of wars waged by imaginary kings of, let us\nsay, Byzantium or Britain. But in poetry which is entirely free from\nscholastic influence, such as the old heroic poems or the poems of the\nViking Age, we shall look in vain for trustworthy examples. The same\nremark is probably true of Slavonic and Cumbrian heroic poetry.\n\nThe other consideration is still more serious. It is the opinion of the\nancient Greeks themselves. Here again we may quote Sir R. C. Jebb's\nwork (p. 84): \"They held that his events and his persons were, in the\nmain, real.... Thucydides differs from Herodotus in bringing down the\nHomeric heroes more nearly to the level of common men. But the basis\nof fact in Homer is fully as real to Thucydides as to Herodotus.\" The\ncurrent hypothesis assumes that both were deceived, and with them\nthe universal consensus of educated Greek opinion. But is not this a\nstrange assumption? Those who hold that the Homeric poems are wholly\nthe work of one author may cherish the belief that this person was so\ngifted as to be able to perpetrate a hoax upon his countrymen which\nin their most enlightened days they never succeeded in detecting.\nBut I do not see how any such idea can be reconciled with the theory\nof evolution. The story was invented, we must presume, by the first\npoet and elaborated by his successors. Were these latter persons\ncognisant of the deception? If not, we must regard their contributions\nas negligible; and consequently we are brought back virtually to the\ntheory of single authorship. And yet no one will suggest that the\npoets of several generations were accomplices in such a deception. The\nonly alternative then, which remains, is that the poets invented and\nelaborated a romance, which they did not intend to be taken seriously.\nHow greatly then has the history of Greek thought been misunderstood!\nIt appears now that the period between the ninth and the fifth\ncenturies was characterised not by intellectual emancipation but by the\ngrowth of credulity.\n\nIn view of these considerations the burden of proof must be held to lie\nwith those who hold that the story is fictitious. Until such proof is\nforthcoming it seems to me that the only reasonable course is to follow\nthe opinion of the ancients, except in so far as we have good reason\nfor believing that they were mistaken. The ancients not only accepted\nthe siege of Troy as a historical fact; they were prepared also to\npoint out the site of the city. The correctness of this identification\nwas indeed disputed by Demetrios of Scepsis, a native antiquary of\nthe second century, who fixed upon another site, some four miles\naway; while modern scholars until recently believed that both were\nwrong. This is why in the passage quoted above Sir R. C. Jebb used the\nexpression \"a city in the Troad.\" But about five or six years after the\npublication of his book the traditional site was fully vindicated by\nthe excavations of Dr D\u00f6rpfeld, which brought to light the remains of\na fortress dating, approximately at least, from the period indicated\nby the story. It was made clear also that this fortress had been\ndestroyed, presumably by enemies. That the destroyers were Greeks\ncould not of course be proved by the excavations. But the evidence of\nthe poems in this respect is confirmed by the fact that the district\nwas inhabited by Greeks in later times[451].\n\nIt is held by many scholars that the story of the siege of Troy is a\nreflection of the Aeolic colonisation of the Asiatic coast. We have\nalready discussed the principle underlying this theory and found no\nevidence in its favour. But it does not follow from this that the two\nevents were unconnected. One of the most famous stories[452] recorded\nby Scandinavian tradition is that of the expedition to England which\nwas undertaken by the sons of Lothbrok for the purpose of exacting\nvengeance for their father's death. Now we have an account of this\ninvasion from a contemporary historical work (the Saxon Chronicle),\nwhich gives the names of two of the princes (Inwaer and Healfdene),\nas well as that of the Northumbrian king Aella against whom the\nexpedition was directed. We know also that Lothbrok's sons were by\nno means contented with the overthrow of Aella; that on the contrary\nthey ravaged the greater part of England. Long after they were all\ndead or departed the eastern half of the country remained Scandinavian\nterritory. According to the Iliad Achilles did not confine his energies\nto Troy; he is said to have ravaged Lesbos and several places in the\ncountry round the Gulf of Adramyttion. Is there any valid reason for\ndenying that the Greek occupation of these lands may have originated\nin such events? We need not suppose of course that the conquered lands\nwere fully occupied at once. But the first settlers may well have\nsecured enough to serve as a refuge for those of their countrymen who\nfled from the Thessalian invasion, probably no long time afterwards.\nA good parallel is furnished by the Scandinavian settlements in the\nBritish Isles, which served as a retreat for many Norwegians who\nrefused to bow to the encroachments of Harold the Fair-haired.\n\nThe Greek settlements in this region were Aeolic, a fact due probably,\nas we have said, to the Thessalian invasion. But Achilles was an\nAchaean, and the same is true of most of the other chief heroes. The\nIliad does not represent Troy as being attacked merely 'by Greeks,' but\nby an army gathered together from nearly all parts of Greece. This is\none of the features in the story to which objection has been taken most\ngenerally. We may grant freely that no parallel for such an undertaking\nis to be found in historical times. Indeed, the objection itself\ncontains a weak point here; for from all that we know of the earliest\nhistorical period it is scarcely credible that such an idea could have\nsuggested itself, even in a work of fiction. On the other hand in the\nthirteenth and twelfth centuries the monuments of Rameses II, Merenptah\nand Rameses III give us information of expeditions which were on at\nleast as large a scale and covered much greater distances. We have no\nreason for doubting that such an undertaking was possible also in the\neleventh century.\n\nBut if the expedition itself is nothing incredible in such a period,\nwhat shall we say with regard to its motive? The reason assigned by the\npoem--that it was brought about by Paris' escapade--is one of those\nfeatures which have been put aside by modern scholars as unworthy of\nconsideration. This attitude is due partly to the application of modern\npolitical theories to a state of society in which they are quite out\nof place. With this question we shall have to deal in the following\nchapter. But it is due still more to the absurd hallucination that a\nstory of abduction must have originated in the 'hypostasis' of natural\nphenomena. According to Scandinavian tradition the expedition of\nLothbrok's sons was inspired by a purely personal motive--the desire to\nexact vengeance for their father's death. But in the Heroic Age itself\nwe have from a strictly contemporary authority (cf. p. 97 f.) the story\nof the great expedition of the Angli against the Warni, which was\ncaused by a breach of promise of marriage.\n\nIt appears then on examination that the central feature of the story,\nnamely the destruction of Troy, rests upon fact, while the other main\nfeatures gain in probability the more one takes into account the\nconditions of the age and the analogies furnished by similar stories\nelsewhere. These considerations tend to support the view that the\nemployment of fiction is to be seen rather in the presentation than in\nthe conception of the story. But the term 'presentation' here, just as\nin Chapter VIII, must be interpreted in a very liberal sense.\n\nWhat has been said above applies of course properly only to the Iliad.\nWith the Odyssey the case is quite otherwise. In the first place we\nhave to note that the ancients themselves took a different view with\nregard to this poem--at all events that part of it which relates to\nthe hero's wanderings. The credibility of the various incidents was\nfrequently and warmly debated; but many of them were defended only by\nan allegorical interpretation. Then again the conditions are similar\nto those in which we find the most pronounced use of fiction in early\nTeutonic poetry. Sigemund is expressly said to have been alone when\nhe attacked the dragon, and most of Beowulf's marvellous exploits are\nperformed when he is either alone or with a single companion. The motif\nof the lonely wanderer in distant lands is not prominent in the remains\nof our poetry, but from what is said of Sigemund in Beow. 876 ff. we\ncan scarcely doubt that it would have been utilised for the exercise of\nthe inventive faculty.\n\nNow we have seen (p. 258 ff.) that the hero's narrative in Od. IX-XII\nis evidently derived from an accumulation of folk-tales. Here the art\nof fiction is shown chiefly in the poet's adaptation of this material\nto his own purpose. But there are other parts of the poem--notably the\npreceding three books (VI-VIII)--which obviously require a different\nexplanation. It is frequently assumed that the Phaeacians are wholly a\ncreation of the poet's fancy. Without going so far as this[453] we may\nseriously doubt whether they were a Greek people and whether there was\nany foundation in history or tradition for the account given here--with\na quite exceptional amount of detail--of their princes, their city and\ninstitutions. If this part of the story is to be regarded as fiction\nit is certainly a more elaborate type of fiction than anything which\nwe meet with in the early heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples. But\nthe false stories told by Odysseus in the latter part of the poem at\nall events go far towards showing that such fiction was not beyond the\npower of Homeric poets.\n\nAccording to our explanation the extensive use of fiction in the story\nof Odysseus is due to the fact that in this case the poet or poets\nhad a free hand, whereas elsewhere, more particularly in the Iliad,\nthey were bound down by tradition. It is not to be overlooked however\nthat the Iliad itself contains many incidents which may similarly be\nregarded as products of invention--additions to the story which did\nnot conflict with anything that had been 'handed down.' As a likely\ninstance of this kind we may cite the Doloneia. But since we can seldom\nor never get beyond a hypothesis with such cases, it will be more\nprofitable, I think, now to turn our attention to another question,\nnamely whether the use of fiction also included the invention of\ncharacters--and if so to what extent.\n\nIn our consideration of the Teutonic stories we came to the conclusion\nthat there was no really satisfactory evidence for such invention. In\nthe Homeric poems the evidence is much stronger. We will first take the\ncase of names which appear to have been coined with an obvious meaning.\nA good example occurs in Od. VIII 111 ff., where the Phaeacian\nathletes are enumerated:\n\n \u1f66\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f08\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f68\u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u039d\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03b3\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bc\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u03a0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, \u0398\u03cc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\n \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b8' \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf\u00b7\n \u1f02\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u1ff7 \u1f36\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03b9,\n \u039d\u03b1\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8', \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\nOther Phaeacians have names of the same type, e.g. \u039d\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u039d\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b1, \u1f0d\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u039a\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f18\u03c7\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2. In such a case as\nthis the poet can scarcely have intended to deceive his audience.\nIndeed the principle is clearly admitted in another passage (XXIV\n305), where Odysseus in a false story describes himself as \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. We need not doubt then that other\nnames are constructed on the same plan, e.g. that of the minstrel,\n\u03a6\u03ae\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a4\u03b5\u03c1\u03c0\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, perhaps also those of the shipowner, \u039d\u03bf\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd son of\n\u03a6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and Menelaos' pilot, \u03a6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f48\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2. Similar cases may\nbe found also in the Iliad[454], e.g. (V 59 ff.) \u03a6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03a4\u03ad\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f09\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c9, \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, or the name\nof a Trojan herald (XVII 323 f.) \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f28\u03c0\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u1fc3, probably also the\nspy \u0394\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u0395\u1f50\u03bc\u03ae\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2 (X 314). This list of course makes no claim to\nbe exhaustive. But on the whole it can hardly be said that the type\nis really common in either poem, except the section dealing with the\nPhaeacians.\n\nIt is far more difficult to form an opinion with regard to the origin\nof characters whose names bear no such obvious mark. Few probably would\nbe inclined to doubt that the names of Helen's handmaidens (Od. IV\n123 ff.) were coined by the poet. But what shall we say with regard\nto the suitors of Penelope[455]? The argument may not be a sound one,\nbut it is not easy to see under what conditions historical names could\nhave been preserved in such a connection. And again, what about the\nnumerous names which figure in the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03b9? Even though many of\nthe names do recur again and again, their number is surprising[456]. It\nis difficult to doubt that the poets gave free rein to their inventive\nfaculties in such scenes.\n\nBut what limits are we to set to this process? If we regard the chief\nheroes themselves as products of fiction we shall be involved in much\nthe same difficulties as if we interpreted the story as a whole in this\nway. In a sense indeed the difficulties will be increased; for it is\nscarcely conceivable that a heroic story should come into existence\nwithout heroes[457]. No one can reasonably doubt that the list of\nPhaeacian athletes is the invention of one man[458]. In the case\nof Penelope's suitors this is not so clear. Yet personally I cannot\nunderstand the Odyssey if it is not, in its present form, largely the\nwork of an individual brain, however much it may have utilised and even\nincorporated older matter. This 'redactor' or 'author' or whatever he\nmay be called may well have invented the names of most of the suitors;\nthey are not essential to the story. But how can any such explanation\nbe applied to the heroes of the siege of Troy? These were not obscure\nchieftains in a distant group of islands without external connections.\nMany of them are represented as rulers of what were once certainly\nthe chief states in Greece, and they were universally recognised as\nhistorical persons from the earliest times of which we have any record.\nIn some cases they were even honoured with worship, and distinguished\nfamilies claimed to be descended from them. Mythical characters, such\nas Scyld or Dardanos, may come to be regarded as historical. But these\nare products of many minds rather than of one, and of reflection\nrather than imagination. Their personification is a gradual process,\nand even when it is accomplished they figure only in the background of\nheroic stories, without any definite individual characterisation. The\nhypothesis which we are now testing has no relation to such figures as\nthese--for Agamemnon, Achilles and their companions are not eponymous\nheroes. If they are creations of one man's imagination we must ask how\nthis person, however gifted he may have been, succeeded in passing\noff his romance as history. On the other hand if they were gradually\n'evolved' by a succession of poets we must ask at what stage and by\nwhat process so great a misunderstanding of their real character\noriginated.\n\nIt is a great assumption that every local record relating to the\nheroes of the Trojan War owes its origin, directly or indirectly, to\nthe influence of Homeric poetry; and yet that is what is involved\nby the hypothesis under discussion. There is no doubt that heroic\npoetry can influence local tradition in an age given to antiquarian\nspeculation; but where shall we find any parallel for such a result as\nthis? Pausanias (II 16. 5) states that the tombs of Agamemnon and his\nhousehold were to be seen at Mycenae. It is likely enough that in this\ncase the local belief was derived ultimately from the poems, although\nit seems to have contained some unorthodox features. But in Pindar,\nAeschylus and other early poets we find forms of the story which\ndiffer much more widely from the Homeric account. These authorities\nalso give us a good deal of information regarding other members of\nthe family, Pelops, Atreus and Orestes--persons who seem not to have\nfigured prominently in any Homeric poems that we know of. Particularly\nwe should notice that according to Pausanias (III 19. 5) the Spartans\nalso possessed a tomb of Agamemnon (at Amyclai), and that in early\ntimes they appear to have claimed him as one of their own kings. To\nthis we have already referred (p. 240). The problem as a whole is\nsurely one which requires considerably more investigation than it has\nyet received. But I should be much surprised if such investigations,\ncarried out in an impartial spirit, did not bring to light many traces\nof stories relating to the Heroic Age, which were independent of\nanything that we may fairly call 'Homeric' poetry.\n\nPerhaps it may be said that we can safely claim a fictitious origin for\nsome of the leading characters without committing ourselves to the view\nthat all of them were sprung from this source. The case of Agamemnon,\nwhich we have mentioned above, is scarcely one of the most promising.\nWe will now take what is generally regarded as the most certain case,\nnamely that of Aias[459]. There are two heroes of this name, of whom\none is a Locrian, while the other belongs to Salamis. The theory now\nmost usually held is that one of the two--preferably the latter--is a\nfictitious character, derived from the other. This theory rests on the\nfollowing arguments: (i) that the two heroes are often found together,\n(ii) that Salamis is only mentioned in two passages, (iii) that, apart\nfrom his brother Teucros, the connections of Aias of Salamis are\nthemselves obviously fictitious. The distinctive characteristic of\nthis Aias is his enormous shield; and this gave birth both to the name\nof his father \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd ('Strap'), and to that of his son, \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2\n('Broad-shield'). The appropriateness of the latter name is evident\nenough; but it does not occur in the Homeric poems. The evidence seems\nto indicate that this person is a genealogical creation of much later\ntimes--possibly due to the misunderstanding of an epithet. On the other\nhand the force of the name \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd does not strike me as particularly\nobvious. Aias' distinguishing characteristic was not his shield-strap,\nbut the shield itself. Several heroes, Agamemnon, Diomedes and others,\nare said to have shield-straps; indeed from Il. II 388 f. we may infer\nthat they were commonly, if not generally, used. Moreover the word\n\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd does not necessarily mean 'shield-strap'; we find it used\nalso, in several passages, for 'sword-strap.' Its original meaning\nappears to have been 'supporter'; and we have no reason for supposing\nthat such a word was inadmissible as a proper name[460]. Again, the\nargument that Salamis is only mentioned twice loses its force when\nthe general usage of the Iliad is taken into account. Except in three\ncases--due largely to certain stereotyped formulae--it is not customary\nto refer to the home or nationality of the Achaean leaders[461]. Even\nif the genuineness of Il. VII 199 be doubted, there can scarcely be\nany question that Aias was localised at Salamis by the time when the\nHomeric poems first obtained general currency in Greece; for the\npost-Homeric (or non-Homeric) genealogy of the Aiacidai and their\nconnection with Aegina go back probably beyond the seventh century.\nThere remains then only the fact that two friends and colleagues have\nthe same name. That is doubtless a curious coincidence; but not more\ncurious than many such cases which occur in real life. On the whole I\ncannot help thinking that the readiness with which this theory has been\nreceived is due to the prevalent enthusiasm for such hypotheses. When\nsoberly considered the evidence in its favour is of the slightest.\n\nIn conclusion we must take account of another hypothesis, which seems\nto be particularly popular at present--namely that many characters have\nbeen attracted into the Trojan cycle from different quarters, some from\nother cycles of heroic poetry, and some from local tradition. Strictly\nspeaking we have here to do with two different hypotheses; but they\nmay conveniently be taken together. Both are credible enough under\ncertain conditions. In the first place we must assume the existence of\na nucleus of original matter sufficient to provide the 'attractive'\nforce. Secondly, the poets' audience must not have such knowledge\neither of the original or the subsidiary stories as would check their\nreadiness to allow the amalgamation. Thus no audience of the fifth\ncentury would have consented to see Heracles introduced into a drama\ndealing with Orestes. But medieval German poems do bring Dietrich von\nBern into association both with Attila and Eormenric, although we know\nthat the three heroes belonged originally to quite distinct stories.\nThis parallel has frequently been urged in support of the contention\nthat Agamemnon or Nestor or Idomeneus may once have belonged to\nseparate stories before they were associated with Achilles or Aias the\nLocrian or whoever it was who was first connected with the siege of\nTroy.\n\nIn Chapter XI we discussed the supposed analogy between Homeric and\nmedieval German poetry and came to the conclusion that it had no\nfoundation. The roots of the latter doubtless go back to court-poetry.\nBut for centuries it was preserved only by popular minstrels; and\nduring this period it underwent not only a process of disintegration\nin regard to subject-matter, but also a complete change both in\nspirit and metrical form. Our discussion led us to conclude that\nthere was no ground for supposing the Homeric poems to have passed\nthrough such a stage as this--that on the contrary they appear to\nhave been preserved by court poets until they attained their final\nform. But heroic court-poetry is everywhere bound by convention. The\npoet must be a master of traditional lore as well as of form; but he\nmust not be a revolutionary. He may borrow descriptions, incidents,\nprobably also minor characters, from other stories and even from\nfolk-tales--especially when he is dealing with the adventures of a\nsolitary wanderer in unknown lands[462]. But, since his audience\nlikewise consists of persons who are more or less trained in the same\nkind of lore, he will find considerable difficulty in transferring a\nwell-known hero from one story to another--more difficulty indeed than\nin inventing the hero outright. He would probably have just about as\nmuch chance of success as a modern dramatist who wished to introduce\nCromwell into a serious play dealing with Napoleon Bonaparte. We must\nhave good evidence before we can believe that the court poets of\nancient Greece were able to indulge in such flights of imagination.\n\nBut no such evidence appears to be forthcoming[463]. One of the cases\nmost commonly cited is the fight of Tlepolemos and Sarpedon. This case\nrests partly on the fact that the two combatants are represented as\ncoming from districts, both remote from Troy but not very distant from\none another, and partly on the groundless assumption that opponents\nmust be near neighbours. Unfortunately Sarpedon himself is killed by\nPatroclos, a hero from Phthiotis. To meet this difficulty we find a\nfurther hypothesis, which need not be discussed here. I do not say\nthat it is impossible that Tlepolemos and Sarpedon have been taken\nfrom a different story. My view is that until it is supported by\nevidence[464] such a conjecture does not deserve serious consideration.\nThe same remark applies to the case of Idomeneus which has likewise\nbeen cited in this connection. Indeed it is surely a fatal objection to\nthis hypothesis as a whole that, with one exception[465], the heroes\nof the Iliad are persons who are known practically only in connection\nwith the siege of Troy. The force of this objection may be appreciated\nby the fact that both poems contain many incidental allusions to heroes\nwho are well known to us from other sources, as well as to persons of\nwhom we know little or nothing at all. If the personnel of the Iliad\nhas really grown up through a process of attraction how is it that\nHeracles, Iason, Peirithoos, Theseus, Minos and Adrastos have not been\ndrawn into the net? Some of them certainly have sons or grandsons who\nfigure in the Iliad; but it deserves to be remarked that, with the\nexception of Idomeneus, these are all persons of little importance.\nOn the other hand the fathers of the principal heroes are themselves\nin no case--unless we count Tydeus--'heroes of the first rank.' Can\nany one seriously argue that such a result as this would be produced\nby an artificial scheme--a scheme, that is to say, in the framing of\nwhich poets had a free command of their material? On the contrary the\nonly conclusion, I think, to which an unbiassed study of the evidence\ncan lead, is that the poets never enjoyed such freedom; that the later\npoets were bound by the work of their predecessors, and these again by\nsomething which bears a suspicious resemblance to facts of real life.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this and the preceding chapters we have reviewed\nbriefly a number of hypotheses which have been brought forward from\ntime to time with the object of explaining the origin of the characters\nand events treated in the Homeric poems. These hypotheses may be\ngrouped summarily under four headings: (i) nature-myths, (ii) tribal\nheroes, (iii) fiction, (iv) transference. In dealing with the first\ngroup we have restricted ourselves to the consideration of two cases\nwhich appear as yet not to have fallen into the same discredit as the\nrest. Our conclusion however is that they rest on equally unsubstantial\nfoundations. The second group is more popular just now, and this we\nhave examined at length. We find that--apart from some genealogical\nnames--this group of hypotheses rests upon a number of assumptions,\nsome of which are incapable of proof, while others are demonstrably\nincorrect. The third group has a much better case. We find that the\nuse of fiction appears to be shown not only in the presentation of\nthe stories (as in Teutonic poetry) but also in the invention of\nminor characters. The extent to which it is used is a problem which\nrequires further investigation. The last remark applies also to the\nfourth group. In principle it is only reasonable to expect that both\ncharacters and incidents may have been transferred from one story to\nanother. But the instances which have been suggested are tainted with\nthe 'tribal hero' hypothesis and the evidence on which they rest is\naltogether inconclusive. Lastly, we have noted that, if our view of\nthe history of Homeric poetry is correct, the use of both fiction\n(invention) and 'transference' must have been confined within certain\nlimits[466].\n\nIt may perhaps be said that these conclusions show an inadequate\nrecognition of the results attained by modern investigations in the\nhistory of Greek heroic tradition. But we may fairly ask how many\ndefinite results have been attained in this field--results, I mean,\nwhich command the unanimous approval, or anything like the unanimous\napproval, of present-day scholars. It is a common opinion, at least in\nthis country, that the general effect has been rather to obscure than\nto solve the real problems presented by the poems. If we put aside the\nopinions of more conservative scholars we may indeed find a common\nelement--namely the belief that the attitude of the ancients themselves\nto stories of the Heroic Age was mistaken. But this belief cannot be\nregarded as a result established by the investigations; it is rather\ntheir starting point.\n\nBy 'the ancients' I do not mean merely the poets and mythographers of\nantiquity. It is admitted that \"the basis of fact in Homer is fully\nas real to Thucydides as to Herodotus.\" Now the work undertaken by\nThucydides was not a history of the Trojan War; but he had evidently\nconsidered that story. Apparently it did not occur to him to doubt\nthat the war had taken place, or even that the expedition had been\ncommanded by Agamemnon, king of Mycenae. What he had reflected on was\nthe question whether the expedition was really on so large a scale as\nis stated in the Iliad; and the result to which his reflections brought\nhim was that there was not a sufficient case for scepticism (\u03bf\u1f54\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2). We are at liberty to form a different opinion. Yet\nThucydides was a man no whit inferior intellectually to the best of\nmodern scholars. Moreover he had the advantage of being a native; and\nhe was separated from the Heroic Age by some six centuries, whereas we\nare separated from it by nearly thirty. There can be little doubt that\nmany sources of information were open to him--traditions, poems and\neven monuments--which are entirely lost to us. It seems to me therefore\nthat before we disregard the opinions of such persons we shall do well\nto consider carefully in what respects we are better qualified for\nforming a judgment.\n\nSo far as I can see we have the advantage in two respects only.\nFirstly, there is the evidence of the Egyptian monuments and of that\nprehistoric Aegean civilisation which has been revealed to us by the\ndiscoveries of Schliemann, D\u00f6rpfeld, Evans, Halbherr and many others.\nIt is at least improbable that Thucydides was as well acquainted with\neither of these sources of information as we are. If he had seen\nDr D\u00f6rpfeld's excavations at Troy he might perhaps have modified\nhis opinion about the numbers of the Achaean army, although he had\nnoted the dimensions of Mycenae. But that after all is a trifle. Can\nit be said that the general effect of the new evidence has been to\ndiscredit the tradition? The records of Rameses II and his successors\nhave definitely disposed of the idea that Agamemnon's expedition was\nanything impossible, while the discoveries in Crete have shown once for\nall that 'early' does not mean the same thing as 'primitive.' It is a\nsignificant fact therefore that in many investigations of the type we\nare discussing little or no use has been made of this new evidence.\nThe evidence on which they rely is evidence which was at least as\naccessible to Thucydides as it is to us.\n\nSecondly, it is in our power, probably far more than it was in that of\nThucydides and his contemporaries, to compare the Homeric stories with\nothers of the same type. It is here that our great advantage lies. But\ncan it be said that this advantage has been turned to account by modern\nwriters? Many works contain no reference to any poetry other than Greek\nand Latin--the latter of which, owing to its dependence upon Greek, is\nof little value for our purpose. Many others, it is true, have used the\nevidence of Teutonic heroic poetry. But only by taking a single poem\nbelonging to the latest stratum, without reference to its history or\nits connections in the poetry of other Teutonic peoples, and by using\nprecarious hypotheses as to the origin of the story as a foundation\nfor similar hypotheses in relation to the Homeric stories. The earlier\nstrata of Teutonic heroic poetry have been ignored as much as the\nheroic poetry of other European peoples.\n\nI have no doubt that much which is obscure in Homeric poetry and\ntradition may be illuminated by a historical study of heroic poetry\nelsewhere--not merely Teutonic but also Celtic, Slavonic and even\nnon-European. For the story of the Iliad in particular I suspect that\na fairly close parallel--perhaps the closest of all--is to be found\nin those Servian poems which deal with the battle of Kossovo[467].\nMy object however in this book is to bring to light the relations of\nGreek and Teutonic heroic poetry--or rather to make a start in that\ndirection, for the object is by no means one which can be accomplished\nin a single attempt. So much however may be said with confidence even\nnow: all that we know, apart from hypotheses, with regard to the\norigin of the Teutonic heroic stories corresponds to the views held by\nThucydides and his contemporaries.\n\nWith the affinities between Homeric poetry and the old Teutonic\ncourt-poetry we shall have to deal in the next chapter. I do not think\nthat any true analogy to the medieval German poems is to be found in\nGreek literature; but I have ventured to suggest (p. 239 f.) that the\npoems of the Edda have something in common with those of Stesichoros\nand his followers. Apart from the poems however, Greek literature\npreserves numerous records of the Heroic Age, frequently, though not\nalways, in the form of local traditions. Some of these are doubtless\ndue to the influence of Homeric or 'Stesichoric' poetry; but we have\nno right to assume that this is universally true. There are a number\nwhich appear to be of popular origin, whether they come from poems of\nStage III (cf. p. 94 ff.) or from poems which were 'popular' from the\nbeginning or from stories which never were clothed in poetic form.\n\nAs an example we will take the story of Minos. So far as I know, there\nis no evidence that this hero figured prominently in any early poems\nof which we have record, though incidental allusions to him occur both\nin the Iliad and the Odyssey. Yet there is no doubt that the Greeks\nregarded him as one of the very greatest figures of the far past. The\nmost striking tradition recorded of him is that he possessed a powerful\nfleet, which enabled him to subdue the islands, to put down piracy and\nthus to secure safety for navigation. This thalassocracy is mentioned\nboth by Herodotus (I 171, III 122) and Thucydides (I 4, 8); and the\nformer adds that no such attempt to command the sea was made again\nuntil the time of Polycrates of Samos, in the latter part of the sixth\ncentury. Later writers relate the famous story of the Minotaur; they\nrepresent Minos also as the founder of cities, including Cnossos and\nPhaistos, the great prehistoric palaces lately excavated, and as a\nlegislator or judge. In what is commonly regarded as one of the latest\nadditions to the Odyssey (XI 568 ff.) we find him giving judgments\namong the dead.\n\nIt is obvious enough that the story of Minos contains many mythical\nfeatures. But do these features constitute the original kernel of\nthe story, or are they accretions, due to folk-tales or popular\nbelief? We need not enter here into the story of the Minotaur, upon\nwhich Dr Evans' discoveries have thrown such a curious light. But\nthere are other features in the story which may be illustrated from\nmedieval beliefs regarding Dietrich von Bern. Sometimes we find\nthis hero represented as the leader of the 'Wild Hunt,' the army of\nghosts[468]--a position elsewhere occupied by Wodan or other mythical\nbeings. In medieval German homilies and other religious works he\nis credited with having been the founder of several famous Roman\nbuildings, such as the Amphitheatre at Verona and the Castle of St\nAngelo at Rome[469]. In such beliefs we have a close enough parallel\nto the traditions of Minos. There is no reason for supposing that\nthe Greeks were better acquainted with the prehistoric Cretans than\nthe Germans were with the ancient Romans. In both cases doubtless it\nseemed natural to attribute the foundation of venerable buildings\nto a prominent hero of their own race[470]. But Dietrich von Bern\n(Theodric, king of the Ostrogoths) was not originally a mythical being.\n\nNor need the tradition of Minos' thalassocracy be regarded as\naltogether incredible. We have seen that in the reigns of Merenptah\nand Rameses III Egypt and the neighbouring lands were invaded by large\nforces from the Aegean or even more remote regions. After the time\nof Rameses III we hear little of these peoples, though it is clear\nthat they had formed settlements on the coast of Palestine. From\nthe following centuries we have apparently only one detailed piece\nof information relating to the Mediterranean, namely the story of a\ncertain Unuamen (or Wenamon), an official belonging to the temple of\nAmen at Thebes, who had been sent to the Lebanon to buy timber[471].\nFrom this story we may infer with some probability that the eastern end\nof the Mediterranean was policed or controlled by the fleets of some\nAegean nation[472]. The time to which the story refers is either the\nreign of Herhor or that of his predecessor Rameses XII[473]--about the\nbeginning of the eleventh century. That seems to be approximately the\ntime indicated for Minos by Greek tradition; for according to Il. XIII\n451 f. and Od. XIX 178 ff. he was the grandfather of Idomeneus. It is\nscarcely impossible that an ambitious Greek prince of this age may have\nbeen animated by the desire of regaining the supremacy of the ancient\nCretans, just as Theodric was inspired by the idea of restoring under\nGothic rule the power formerly held by the Roman emperors.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[451] It has been held that the Aeolic settlements in the Troad\nitself date only from the seventh century (cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des\nAlterthums_, II pp. 203, 463 f.), and there is some evidence that\nmovements of this kind were in operation about that time. But the\nexcavations at Troy brought to light the fact that the district had\nbeen occupied, in times long subsequent to the destruction of the\nfortress, by a semi-barbarous people, apparently from the region of\nthe Danube. The evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that there\nwere Greek settlements in existence before this time, but that they\nwere temporarily overthrown by the barbarians (cf. Br\u00fcckner, _Troja und\nIlion_, p. 567 ff.). At all events it is clear that the Homeric poets\nwere familiar with the district.\n\n[452] For a full account of this story see Mawer, _Ragnar Lothbr\u00f3k and\nhis sons_ (published in the Saga-Book of the Viking Club, Jan. 1909).\n\n[453] Cf. \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7. \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a7\u03b1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f19\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. (Steph. Byz.,\ns.v.) From this notice we gather that at the beginning of the fifth\ncentury (or earlier) the Greeks knew of a city or state called Baiace\nin Chaonia, i.e. opposite the island of Corfu, which was usually\nidentified with Scheria in ancient times. It has been remarked by\nseveral scholars that the name \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7 is obviously independent of\nHomeric poetry. We may infer also (i) that it was derived from a\nnon-Greek source and (ii) that if \u0392\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba- and \u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba- are identical the\nlatter name must have become known to the Greeks in very early times.\nIt is not impossible that in the Heroic Age the Greeks may have been\nfamiliar with more than the name of this people; but there is no\nevidence, so far as I am aware, for the existence of a prehistoric\ncivilisation on the Albanian coast--such as we find depicted in Od.\nVI-VIII. Until such evidence is forthcoming probability is in favour\nof the view that the picture drawn of the Phaeacian community in the\nOdyssey is derived from a different region--most likely from the Aegean.\n\n[454] Possibly \u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 is another example of this type. It seems to\nme more probable however that it is a nickname, similar to \u1f3e\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (Od.\nXVIII 6 f.). It has been well connected with \u0398\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, a Laconian name\nfor Ares or Enyalios (cf. Usener, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Wien_, CXXXVII,\np. 53). But I cannot see any justification for the hypothesis (_ib._,\np. 57) that the practices described by Pausanias (III 14. 8 f.; XIX 7\nf.; XX 2. 8) represent a contest between Enyalios and Achilles, or for\nconnecting them in any way with the story of the killing of Thersites\nby Achilles in the Aithiopis. Achilles was worshipped elsewhere in\nconnection with athletic practices (cf. Pausanias, VI 23. 3; also the\n\u0394\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 mentioned by Arrian, _Peripl._ 21. 1), probably for the\nsame reason that worship was paid to famous athletes of the past (cf.\nPindar, _Isth._ VII 37, 59 ff.).\n\n[455] Curiously enough the most suspicious names are those of the\ntwo chief characters, \u0395\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 son of \u03a0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 son of\n\u0395\u1f50\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n[456] Under the head of fiction I think we may probably include many\nnational names and names derived from cities, rivers, etc. It has been\nremarked above (p. 268, note) that these names occur chiefly among the\nTrojans and their allies, e.g. \u03a4\u03c1\u03ce\u03c2 (son of Alastor), \u0394\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (son\nof Bias), \u039c\u03cd\u03b3\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u0394\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c8, \u0394\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c8, \u03a4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03a0\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f3c\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u1f38\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, \u0398\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2. I do not mean of course to\nsuggest that all such names are necessarily fictitious. The type\ndoubtless was ancient, but it possessed obvious facilities for the\nformation of names for fictitious characters of foreign nationality.\n\n[457] This point seems to me to be of fundamental importance; but it\nis apparently not always recognised. Prof. Meyer (_Geschichte des\nAlterthums_, II p. 207) holds, rightly as I think, that there is no\nvalid reason for doubting that Troy actually was destroyed by a king of\nMycenae. Yet elsewhere (_ib._, p. 186 f., etc.) he regards Agamemnon\nhimself as a Spartan deity and most of the other chief Achaean heroes\nas mythical or fictitious or at least unconnected originally with the\nstory of Troy. According to my view the interest in heroic poetry,\nGreek as well as Teutonic, Welsh or Servian, was from the beginning\nessentially bound up with individual characters, e.g. not with a\n(nameless) king of Mycenae--which is comparatively seldom mentioned\n(cf. p. 274)--but with King Agamemnon. It is true that under certain\nconditions one name occasionally does displace another in heroic\nstories; but we have seen no reason for believing that the conditions\nfavourable to such changes ever prevailed in the history of Greek\nheroic poetry. Neither the name \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd nor the later inferences to\n\u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd seem to me to afford any valid ground for doubting that\nAgamemnon was the king of Mycenae originally concerned in the story.\n\n[458] Note should be taken also of the fact that the peculiar type\nof nomenclature which we find among the Phaeacians (cf. p. 299) is\nnot confined to the list of athletes but spread over the whole of\nthis section of the poem. It is quite possible of course that the few\nexceptional names, such as \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2, may be derived from tradition or\nfrom an earlier poet.\n\n[459] Cf. Robert, _Studien zur Ilias_, p. 406 ff.; Bethe, _N. Jahrb._,\nXIII p. 1 ff.; Cauer, _Grundfragen_\u00b2 p. 197 ff.\n\n[460] It is to be remembered that as a patronymic \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 is an\nAeolic formation. The rareness of forms of this type renders it highly\nimprobable that a nickname thus formed should have been misinterpreted\nas a patronymic. As a nickname too should we not rather have expected\n\u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2?\n\n[461] Two passages mention \u039b\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03af in connection with the other Aias;\nthree mention \u1f38\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u03b7 or \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 in connection with Odysseus. \u03a3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\nand \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd are mentioned in connection with Menelaos only in the\nCatalogue. References to Eurybates and Helen are of course not included\nhere. The only leading Achaean heroes whose home or nationality is\nfrequently mentioned are Achilles, Nestor and Idomeneus.\n\n[462] For folk-tales cf. p. 258 ff. The same conditions are probably\nfavourable both to transference and invention. The latter faculty is\nperhaps first displayed in lists of supernatural beings, such as those\nof the Nereids in Il. XVIII 39 ff. and Theog. 242 ff. (which differ a\ngood deal). We may compare the list of dwarfs given in V\u00f6lusp\u00e1.\n\n[463] We need not discuss the identification of the Adrestos and\nAmphios of Il. II 830 with the famous Adrastos and Amphiaraos of the\nTheban story (cf. Usener, _S.-B. der Akad. zu Wien_, 1898, p. 37 ff.).\nThe strangest feature in this 'discovery' is the fascination which,\nin spite of its obvious untenability, it seems to have exercised on\nsubsequent writers.\n\n[464] The evidence of the grave-mound in Lycia, cited by Prof.\nMurray (_Rise of the Greek Epic_, p. 191, note), can hardly be taken\nseriously. Indeed Prof. Murray himself seems to consider Sarpedon's\nLycian connections at least as illusory as his connection with Troy.\n\n[465] Diomedes no doubt figured in the story of the second attack\nupon Thebes. It has been suggested that this hero was also originally\nidentical with the Bistonian Diomedes, who fed his mares with human\nflesh and was killed by Heracles. The value of this identification\ndepends largely upon the question whether the Doloneia formed an\noriginal part of the story of the Iliad. That is a view which would\nprobably gain the assent of few scholars--even of those who believe\nthat the Doloneia is not much later than the rest of the Iliad in its\nfinal form. The other arguments are of little consequence. Diomedes\ndisplays a propensity for capturing chariots--a feature which perhaps\ngave rise to the adventure with Rhesos; but the same remark is true of\nAntilochos. He fights also with the 'Thracian' god Ares, as well as\nwith Aphrodite. But it is clear that the feud with these deities really\nbelongs to Athene, Diomedes' hereditary guardian. In later stories,\nrelating to the east of Italy, there may have been a confusion between\nthe two heroes; and it is scarcely impossible that here and there\nDiomedes of Argos took over a cult belonging to his namesake. If so we\nshall have to suppose that the Bistonian Diomedes was originally an\nIllyrian rather than a Thracian hero.\n\n[466] The most highly developed use of fiction occurs probably when the\npoets are dealing with unknown regions or peoples, as in the story of\nOdysseus (cf. p. 297 f.). But I am not aware that there is any evidence\nfor the existence of poems on wholly fictitious subjects.\n\n[467] On this subject see Note VII.\n\n[468] Cf. J. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_\u2074 (Engl. Transl.), p. 936 f.\n\n[469] Cf. W. Grimm, _Deutsche Heldensage_, p. 40 (and passim); J.\nGrimm, _op. cit._, p. 1183.\n\n[470] Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d. Alt._\u00b2, I p. 680 ff.) has pointed out\nthat, while Thucydides seems to have regarded Minos as a Greek,\nHerodotus apparently held a different view. Such is certainly the\nnatural inference to be drawn from the language of the two historians,\nthough the evidence is perhaps not quite conclusive in either case. But\nHerodotus, at all events in VII 171, clearly derived his information\nfrom the people of Praisos--a community which cannot have been wholly\nGreek even in his time. Their account seems to have been due to an\nattempt to reconcile Greek and native traditions, Homeric influence\nbeing shown by the sentence \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u039c\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03ca\u03ba\u03ac, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. We may compare the Egyptian story of Helen\n(cf. p. 266). In the Homeric poems themselves Idomeneus is descended\nfrom Minos, and no hint is given that either of them was regarded\nas non-Greek. The same remark appears to be true of Greek tradition\nelsewhere.\n\n[471] Cf. Petrie, _History of Egypt_, III 197 ff.; Breasted, _Ancient\nRecords (Egypt)_, IV 274 ff. Prof. Breasted believes that this document\nis Wenamon's authentic report of his expedition.\n\n[472] In the course of an adventurous journey the envoy was intercepted\nby some ships of the Zakar (Tchakaray), a people mentioned among the\nAegean confederates who fought against Rameses III (cf. p. 188 ff.).\nThese Zakar brought him before the prince of Byblos and demanded that\nhe should be arrested. Prof. Petrie speaks of them as Cretan 'pirates,'\nbut neither their own behaviour nor that of the prince seems to me\nto be reconcilable with such a view. According to Prof. Breasted's\nreconstruction of the story--where the papyrus is defective--the envoy\nhad himself been guilty of lawless conduct previously. Incidentally it\nappears from the story that a considerable amount of traffic was being\ncarried on at this time both in Egyptian and Syrian ships.\n\n[473] Herhor is mentioned in the story, but not as king.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE VII. THE BATTLE OF KOSSOVO IN SERVIAN POETRY.\n\n\nIt has been mentioned above (p. 310) that for the story of the Iliad\na fairly close parallel is to be found in those Servian poems which\ndeal with the battle of Kossovo[474]. This parallelism has long\nbeen noticed, but unfortunately it has given rise to an unnecessary\ncontroversy. Servian writers, inspired by patriotic zeal, have sought\nto make an 'Iliad' by stringing their national poems together, while\nscholars of other nations have denied that the Servians possess\nanything which deserves to be called epic poetry. We need not concern\nourselves here with a discussion about terms. It is clear enough\nthat Servian heroic poetry bears little resemblance to the Homeric\npoems as we have them. But we may strongly suspect that at an earlier\nstage in the history of Homeric poetry the resemblance would be much\ncloser, although the art of heroic poetry in Greece had doubtless been\nelaborated for centuries to a far higher degree than was ever attained\nby Servian poets.\n\nIt is to the treatment of the story however, and not to the qualities\nof the poetry, that I wish to call attention. Beowulf, Finn, Waldhere\nand the Hildebrandslied all deal with fighting of various kinds, but\nwe do not know how early Teutonic poetry treated a story of actual\nwar. The Servian poems resemble the Iliad chiefly in the comparatively\nlarge number of prominent characters which they introduce and in the\nfact that they deal with a series of more or less distinct episodes,\nin which various heroes from time to time play the leading part.\nLazar's council or court furnishes an interesting parallel to that of\nAgamemnon--the more instructive because we can here check the evidence\nof the poems by historical records, some of which are practically\ncontemporary, while many date from within a century of the battle.\n\nKing Lazar himself and his opponent, Sultan Murad I, are of course\nwell-known historical persons. There is no doubt also with regard\nto Vuk Brankovi\u0107, the chief of Lazar's followers or allies. In the\npoems he is represented as the husband of Mara (Maria), the king's\ndaughter; but in this case there may be some confusion. According to\nDucas (p. 17[475]) Lazar had a daughter of this name who was married\nto Bajazet, the son and successor of Murad, after the conclusion of\nthe war. Vuk Brankovi\u0107 was however a son-in-law of Lazar according to\nLaonicos Chalcocondylas (p. 53). Again, Jug Bogdan, represented in\nthe poems as Lazar's father-in-law[476], is believed to be identical\nwith a certain prince named \u039c\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03a0\u03cc\u03b3\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), who, according to\nLaonicos (p. 28), was granted by Du\u0161an the territories between Pherrai\nand the Axios (Vardar), and who about 1372 submitted to Murad together\nwith the other Servian princes in this region. To these we may add the\nvojvoda Vladeta; for there can be little doubt that this person is to\nbe identified with that Vlathico Vlagenichio who, according to the\nanonymous translation of Ducas' history (p. 352), was sent by his uncle\nIuathco (Tvrtko), king of Bosnia, to support Lazar with 20,000 men.\n\nOn the other hand some doubt has been expressed with regard to Milo\u0161\nObili\u0107 (or Kobilovi\u0107) the chief Servian hero of the story. He is not\nmentioned apparently by any strictly contemporary authority. Yet\nthe traditional account of Murad's death is known to the two Greek\nhistorians Ducas and Laonicos, both of whom are believed to have\nwritten within about three quarters of a century after the battle. The\nlatter (p. 54) states that according to the Greek version of the story\na Servian nobleman named \u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 rode fully armed into the Turkish camp,\nrepresenting himself to be a deserter. Murad gave orders that he was to\nbe allowed to come near and say what he wished. But when he reached the\ndoor of the Sultan's tent he threw his spear and slew Murad, meeting\nwith his own death immediately afterwards. Laonicos however also says\nthat the Turks gave quite a different account of the affair--namely\nthat as Murad was pursuing the enemy a Servian (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd), who\nwas on foot, turned and transfixed him with a javelin. Ducas' version\nof the story (p. 15) resembles that given by the poems in the fact that\nthe assassin uses a dagger. His name is not given, but he is said to\nhave been a young and distinguished Servian and to have asked to see\nMurad as a deserter with important information.\n\nCloser affinity with the poems is shown by the anonymous translation\nof Ducas' history (p. 352 ff.), which contains much additional\nmatter. Indeed it is scarcely possible to doubt that the additions\nare partly derived from poems, though these may not have been exactly\nidentical with any which are now extant. When Milo\u0161 ('Milos Cobilichio,\ncapetanio de Lazaro') reaches the Sultan's tent we are told, as in the\npoems[477], that he is bidden to kiss Murad's foot 'according to the\nusage of his kingdom[478].' Far more striking however is the account\nof the banquet on the preceding day, which in places appears to be\nlittle more than a free translation of a fragmentary poem published in\nKarad\u017ei\u0107's collection[479]: \"El zorno precedente a quello che segu\u00ec\nla iniqua et infelice bataglia, Lazaro convocati tutti i signori et\nprincipali del suo imperio[480], comand\u00f2 che se aparechiasse una\nsdraviza secondo la usanza dela sua corte; in laquale, come gratioso\net benigno signore, a tutti porse la sdraviza con sua mano. Quando la\nvolta tocc\u00f2 a Milos, se f\u00e8 dar una grande taza d'oro piena de pretioso\nvino[481]; la qual porzendoli disse a Milos: 'Excellentissimo cavalier,\nprendi questa sdraviza, che con la taza te dono ... sdravize per amor\nmio. Ma molto mi doglio che ho inteso una mala novella, che al tuo\ndispoto sei facto ribello'[482]. Al qual Milos, reverentemente presa\nla taza con chiara faza, disse: 'Signor dispoto, molto te ringratio\ndella sdraviza et taza d'oro che m' ai donata. Ma molto mi doglio\ndela mia dubitata fede[483]. Doman de matina, se dio dar\u00e0 effecto al'\nalto pensier mio, se cognoscer\u00e0 se io son fidele o ribello dela tua\nSignoria.\"\n\nThis translation is believed to be of Dalmatian origin[484] and,\naccording to Prof. Bury[485], itself dates from the fifteenth\ncentury. We are bound to conclude therefore that Milo\u0161' exploit was\ntreated in poems--from which some of the extant pieces are ultimately\ndescended--within a century of the battle. The earliest direct\nreference to poems dealing with _Khobilouitz_ (i.e. Milo\u0161 Kobilovi\u0107)\ngoes back to the first half of the sixteenth century, at which time\nthey are said to have been numerous[486]. It may be however that the\naccounts given by Ducas himself and by Laonicos are also derived\nultimately from poems[487]. But if so the poetic treatment of the\nsubject must have begun within living memory of the battle; for it is\nclear from the evidence of these authors that by the middle of the\nfifteenth century the story had come to the Greeks in more than one\nform and that it had even attained great celebrity among them[488].\n\nThe Kossovo poems certainly give us some evidence for the phenomenon\nwhich we have above (p. 307) called 'transference.' In one poem\n(Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 46, v. 59 ff.) we find it stated that King Vuka\u0161in\nentered into the battle and met with his death. In reality he was\nkilled at (or shortly after) the battle of the Marica in 1371. The same\npoem also, immediately afterwards (v. 71 ff.), introduces Erceg Stepan,\nwho lived nearly a century later. But this poem[489] is of a very\npeculiar type--distinctly non-heroic--and it is not legitimate to draw\nconclusions from it as to the poems in general. It would be of far more\nimportance for our purpose if we knew that Jug Bogdan was attracted\ninto the story. He must certainly have been an old man in 1389, since\nhe had his territories granted to him by Du\u0161an, who died in 1356. But\nhe is regularly described as 'the old' (_stari_) in the poems. The fact\nalso that he had been a vassal of Murad from 1372 onwards is hardly\nconclusive; for it is clear that a great effort was made in 1389 to\nunite the various Servian princes. On the whole the evidence, so far\nas it is known to me, does not seem to indicate that attraction or\ntransference has played an important part in the story.\n\nFor the invention of characters there is, so far as I know, no\nabsolutely decisive evidence. But probably few would be inclined to\nregard such a person as Vaistina, the servant or squire (_sluga_) of\nMusi\u0107 Stefan[490] (Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 47), otherwise than as a product of\nfiction; and the same remark applies to the squire Milutin who brings\nthe news of Lazar's death to the queen (_ib._ 45. 146 ff.). It is a\nmore difficult matter to form an opinion as to whether any of the\nmore important characters are fictitious. Several of them appear to\nbe unknown from contemporary historical works. Among these we may\nmention Musi\u0107 Stefan himself and more especially Banovi\u0107 Strahinja, the\nhero of the longest poem in the cycle (_ib._ 44). So far as I know,\nthe earliest reference to the latter is in the Chronicle of Trono\u0161a,\nwhich mentions incidentally the destruction of his palace[491]. Again,\naccording to the poems Milo\u0161 was accompanied on his errand to Murad by\ntwo of his friends, Milan Toplica and Ivan Kosan\u010di\u0107. Both these persons\nare mentioned in the same connection by the Chronicle of Trono\u0161a,\nwhich adds that at the banquet on the preceding night they, as well as\nMilo\u0161, had been charged with disloyalty by the king. This chronicle is\nbelieved to be derived from a MS. of the sixteenth century; but there\nis practically no doubt that it has drawn largely from poetic sources.\nOur earliest authorities, Laonicos and Ducas, together with the\ntranslation of the latter, seem to imply distinctly that Milo\u0161 carried\nout his exploit alone. That however does not prove that the characters\nthemselves are fictitious. On the whole, considering the limited amount\nof information which early records furnish, it would probably be wise\nto hesitate before adopting the view that any of the more important\ncharacters are invented--at all events those which can be traced back\nto within two centuries of the battle.\n\nThere seems to be no evidence for the introduction of what can properly\nbe called mythical beings in poems of the Kossovo cycle[492]. But\nsometimes we certainly find supernatural incidents. In Karad\u017ei\u0107, II\n45. 119 ff. two crows from the field of Kossovo bring to the queen the\nfirst news of the battle and of Lazar's death. A more extravagant case\noccurs in the opening verses of (_ibid._) II 46--a poem to which we\nhave already referred. Lazar is here made to receive a letter dropped\nby a swallow (which is carried by a falcon) offering him the choice\nbetween the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. In another (Croatian) poem\n(Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 48[493]) the mother of the Jugovi\u0107i prays that she may\nreceive the eyes of a falcon and the wings of a swan. Her prayer is\nanswered, and she flies to the field of Kossovo and sees the dead\nbodies of her sons and husband. This poem is largely taken up with the\nmarvellous throughout and has little in common with heroic poetry.\n\nBut it is from the point of view of their presentation of the story\nthat the Kossovo poems chiefly merit our attention. This presentation\ncontains many features which may be included under the head of fiction.\nYet in certain cases it is a question whether we have not rather what\nmay be called a growth of myth. By this I mean the introduction and\ndevelopment of motives which, though incorrect historically, can hardly\nbe regarded, at least in their entirety, as conscious inventions of an\nindividual. They would seem rather to have originated in rumour and\npopular misconceptions. As examples we may take what are perhaps the\ntwo most salient features in the story--the exploit of Milo\u0161 and his\nconfederates and the treachery of Vuk Brankovi\u0107.\n\nWe have already dealt with the first of these incidents. The poems\nmake Milo\u0161 and his companions perform prodigies of valour before they\nare overcome. But our earliest authorities state that Milo\u0161 was killed\nalmost immediately; and they imply that he was alone. Indeed we know\nthat the Turks gave quite a different account of Murad's death. It is\nnot at all clear that between the two the Servian account possesses the\ngreater probability. But it may very well have been believed among the\nServians from the very beginning, whether its origin is to be traced\nto genuine information derived from the Turkish camp or merely to idle\nrumour.\n\nAgain, the treachery of Vuk Brankovi\u0107 is proclaimed again and again in\nthe poems. But there is no evidence earlier than the sixteenth century\nto substantiate the charge[494]. The first reference to treachery in\nLazar's army occurs in the translation of Ducas' history (p. 354); but\nhere the traitor is called 'Dragossavo Probiscio, capitaneo del campo\ndel dispoto.' It has been suggested that Vuk's unenviable celebrity in\nthe poems is due to the unpopularity of his son, George Brankovi\u0107, who\nruled over Servia from 1427 to 1457[495].\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe above brief sketch will probably be sufficient to show that these\npoems are capable of throwing a good deal of light upon the origin\nand development of a heroic story. The period is one for which,\ncomparatively speaking, a fair amount of information is available; and\nquite possibly more might be obtained by a careful investigation of\nthe documents of that age. It is to be remembered of course that after\nthe middle of the fifteenth century nothing like court poetry can have\nexisted in Servia. We should expect then that from this time onwards\nthe poems would become more and more permeated by those characteristics\nwhich we have assigned to Stage III of our scheme. As a matter of fact\nsome of the poems show these characteristics only to a comparatively\nslight degree. This is especially the case with the poem on the\nbanquet (Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 50 iii); but part of this poem, as we have seen,\ncan be traced back to the fifteenth century. On the other hand the\ncharacteristics of Stage III are very strongly marked in Karad\u017ei\u0107 II 46\nand 48. I should expect that these poems are late compositions.\n\nSo far as I have been able to deal with the subject the result of\nthe discussion has been that there is little or no definite evidence\nfor the invention of characters. That is a result which can scarcely\nbe regarded as surprising, in view of the history of Servian poetry.\nOn the other hand the conditions were such as we should expect to\nbe exceptionally favourable to the development of transference or\nattraction. Yet there is but little satisfactory evidence in this\ndirection. I am inclined therefore to think that the force of this\nprinciple has been considerably overestimated by recent writers. What\nthe Kossovo poems do seem to suggest is--not that the characters of the\nIliad were invented or attracted from other quarters, but that their\nexploits and their relations with one another may in reality have been\nvery different from what we find depicted in the poem.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[474] My object in this note is to call attention to a subject which\nappears to have been strangely neglected by English Homeric students.\nI cannot claim to possess the requisite qualifications, linguistic\nand historical, for an independent investigation of the subject.\nEnglish translations of many of the poems are to be found, together\nwith a historical introduction, in Mme Mijatovich's _Kossovo_ (London,\n1881). For a more critical study the reader may be referred to the\nintroduction to Pasi\u0107's _Narodne Pjesme o boju na Kosovu godine 1389_\n(Agram, 1877), to which I am much indebted.\n\n[475] The references to Laonicos' and Ducas' histories, as well as to\nthe translation of the latter, are to the pages in Niebuhr's edition.\nIt may be that Ducas was mistaken with regard to the name of Bajazet's\nwife; cf. Engel, _Geschichte von Serwien_, p. 332.\n\n[476] I do not know whether this is historically correct. There seem\nto be a number of historical references to Milica, Lazar's queen; cf.\nEngel, _op. cit._, pp. 311, 331, 346 f.\n\n[477] Cf. Pasi\u0107, _op. cit._, VI v. 13 ff. (p. 92). This passage is\ntaken from a Croatian poem (Nr. 6, v. 166 ff.) published by Miklosich,\n_Denkschriften d. k. Akademie d. Wissenschaften_ (Vienna), XIX p.\n73 ff., from a MS. collection at Ragusa dating from about 1728. Mme\nMijatovich's poem on the same subject (p. 120 ff.) differs a good deal\nfrom this and bears a closer resemblance to the Italian in one or two\npoints.\n\n[478] 'Secondo la usanza del suo imperio' (cf. Miklosich, 6. 167:\n'Ovaki su zakoni, Milo\u0161u, u zemlji mojoj,' etc.).\n\n[479] Vuk Stef. Karad\u017ei\u0107, _Srpske Narodne Pjesme_, Vol. II (Vienna,\n1875), 50 III (p. 310 ff.). This is translated, with a few slight\nchanges, in Mme Mijatovich's piece 'The Banquet before Battle' (p. 116\nff.). A somewhat different account of the same incident--and showing\nless resemblance to the Italian--occurs in Miklosich, 6. 116 ff., a\npassage which is not used by Pasi\u0107 or Mijatovich.\n\n[480] Cf. Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 50 iii, v. 3 f.:\n\n Svu gospodu za sofru sjedao (_scil._ Lazare),\n svu gospodu i gospodi\u010di\u0107e.\n\n[481] _Ibid._, v. 13:\n\n Car uzima zlatan pehar vina, etc.\n\n[482] _Ibid._, v. 31 ff.:\n\n Zdrav Milo\u0161u, vjero i nevjero!\n prva vjero, potonja nevjero!\n Sjutra ce\u0161 me izdat' na Kosovu,\n i odbje\u0107i Turskom car-Muratu;\n zdrav mi budi! i zdravicu popij:\n vino popij, a na \u010dast ti pehar.\n\n[483] _Ibid._, v. 39 ff.:\n\n Vala tebe, slavni knez-Lazare!\n Vala tebe na tvojoj zdravici,\n na zdravici i na daru tvome;\n al' ne vala na takoj besjedi; etc.\n\n[484] Cf. Pasi\u0107, _op. cit._, p. 26.\n\n[485] Gibbon's _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, VII p. 327.\n\n[486] Cf. Murko, _Geschichte der \u00e4lteren s\u00fcdslaw. Litteraturen_, p. 205.\n\n[487] This is perhaps rather suggested by one or two of Laonicos'\nsentences, e.g. (\u039c\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd) \u1f61\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u1ff3 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03c4\u1f78\n\u1f08\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (p. 54);\nand more especially by the speech which Ducas (p. 15) attributes to\nMilo\u0161: \"\u0392\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c8\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u1fd2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1.\" With\nthe last sentence we may compare Miklosich, 6. 164:\n\n Ja sam ti se odvrg'o od vojske Lazara kneza.\n\n[488] Cf. Laonicos, l.c.: \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 ... \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f11\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, and\nagain, below: \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\n\n[489] The first part of this poem (vv. 1-44) corresponds to Mijatovich,\np. 104 ff.; the second part (v. 47 ff.) to Mijatovich, p. 126 ff. In\nsuch cases as this it is much to be regretted that Mme Mijatovich\ndid not adhere to Karad\u017ei\u0107's text. If the explanation be that her\nversion is derived from a different source--and not due to arbitrary\ntransposition--this should have been made clear.\n\n[490] In Miklosich, 6. 1-58, which deals with the same story the squire\nis called Oliver, while his master's name appears as Bu\u0161ic Stjepane.\n\n[491] Quoted by Pasi\u0107, _op. cit._, p. 30.\n\n[492] Other poems, both Christian and Mohammedan, frequently introduce\nVile, i.e. nymphs or elf-women.\n\n[493] Not included in the collections of Pasi\u0107 and Mijatovich. A\nslightly variant form (apparently of Montenegrin origin) is published,\ntogether with a translation, in Krauss' _Slavische Volkforschungen_, p.\n289 f.\n\n[494] Prof. Murko (_op. cit._, p. 202) states that Vuk \"in der Schlacht\nin hervorragender Weise seine Pflicht erf\u00fcllt und sich dann mit den\nT\u00fcrken gar nicht ausges\u00f6hnt hat wie Lazar's Sohn Stefan.\" I do not\nknow the authority for the first part of this statement; but according\nto the Turkish account (cf. Engel, _Geschichte von Serwien_, p. 346)\nthe (right) wing of the Servian army which was commanded by Vuk was\nsuccessful.\n\n[495] Cf. Pasi\u0107, _op. cit._, p. 42.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF TEUTONIC AND GREEK HEROIC POETRY.\n\n\nOur review of the Homeric poems has led us to conclude that their\norigin and early history was in many respects analogous to that of the\nEnglish heroic poems; and further, that there is no valid reason for\nregarding the stories with which they deal as mythical or fictitious,\nalthough we cannot, as in the case of the English poems, actually prove\nthat they rest upon a historical basis. We must now endeavour to see\nwhat common elements the two series of poems contain in regard to style\nand spirit. This will enable us to determine whether the term 'Heroic\nAge,' as applied to the two cases in common, can be held to mean\nanything more than an age of 'heroes,' whose deeds were celebrated in\npoetry.\n\nThe most cursory glance at the two groups of poems will be sufficient\nto show that they contain many common features in regard to style. In\nboth we find the constant repetition of the same formulae, e.g. in\nthe introduction of speeches. Thus in the first part of Beowulf eight\nspeeches out of thirteen by the hero himself are introduced by the\nformula: _Beowulf ma\u00feelode bearn Ecg\u00feeowes_, while three of Hrothgar's\nseven speeches follow the words: _Hro\u00f0gar ma\u00feelode helm Scyldinga_.\nIn the Iliad we may compare the constant repetition of such formulae\nas: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4' \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ad\u03c6\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd or: \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4' \u1f20\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4'\n\u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u0393\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u039d\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1. The explanation of such formulae is\nprobably to be found in the fact that both sets of poems were designed\nfor preservation by oral tradition. In literary poems such as the\nAeneid they seem to be avoided. Indeed the words introducing a speech\nare here seldom allowed to occupy a whole verse.\n\nAnother feature common to the two groups of poems is the love of\ndescribing somewhat minutely the details of a transaction which in\nitself is nothing unusual. Often in such cases they use very similar\nlanguage. Thus in Od. IV 778 ff. Antinoos' preparations are described\nas follows: \"With these words he picked out twenty men who were the\nbest, and they went on their way to the swift ship and the sea-shore.\nFirst of all they pushed out the ship into deep water; and they placed\nthe mast and the sails in the black ship and made ready the oars in\nthe leathern rowlocks, each in its proper place, and spread out the\nwhite sails. And high-hearted squires carried their arms. The ship\nthey moored afloat in the roadstead; but they themselves disembarked.\nThere they took their supper and waited for the approach of evening.\"\nWith this passage we may compare Beow. 205 ff.: \"The hero had with him\npicked champions of the men of the Geatas, the bravest he could find;\nso with fourteen companions he made his way to the vessel. A skilful\npilot was the man who pointed out the features of the coast. When due\ntime had elapsed the ship was afloat beneath the lee of the cliff, and\nthe warriors all prepared ascended the prow, where the waves of the sea\nwere playing upon the sand. Into the bosom of the craft men bore their\nbright treasures, even their resplendent armour. The company pushed off\ntheir timbered craft and started on the adventure of their choice.\"\n\nAgain the movements of royal personages in their palaces are sometimes\nrather carefully noted. In Od. I 328 ff. we are told that \"Icarios'\ndaughter, thoughtful Penelope, became conscious of the glorious song\nin her upper chamber; and she descended the lofty staircase of her\ndwelling, but not alone, for two attendant maidens accompanied her. Now\nwhen the noble lady drew near the suitors she stood beside the pillar\nof the well built house, holding her shining veil before her face; and\none of her trusty attendants stood by her on either side.\" With this we\nmay compare Beow. 921 ff.: \"As for the king himself, the guardian of\nthe ring-hoards, famed for his sterling qualities--he likewise strode\nmajestically from his bedchamber with a great following; and with him\nhis queen traversed the ascent to the mead-hall, accompanied by a band\nof maidens. When Hrothgar arrived at the hall he stood by the pillar\n(?), gazing on the lofty roof, adorned with gold, and on Grendel's arm.\"\n\nBoth poems also elaborate the various stages in the arrival and\nreception of visitors. As an example we may take the account of\nTelemachos' arrival at Menelaos' palace in Od. IV 20 ff.: \"At this\ntime the hero Telemachos and Nestor's distinguished son had drawn\nup with their horses in the vestibule of the palace. Now the lord\nEteoneus, renowned Menelaos' active squire, came forward and saw them.\nAnd he went on his way through the building to give the news to the\nshepherd of the people; and standing beside him addressed him with\nwinged words.\" Menelaos replies that the strangers are to be brought\nin at once. The arrival of Beowulf at the Danish king's palace is\ndescribed at much greater length. First, he is greeted by Wulfgar, the\nking's herald and henchman. Then he replies, and Wulfgar promises to\ntake his message. \"Quickly then he sped to where Hrothgar was sitting,\naged and grey-haired, among his retinue of nobles. Exulting in his\nprowess he passed on until he took his stand at the side of the prince\nof the Danes; for he knew the usage of chivalry.\" After this we have\nstill three more speeches--first by Wulfgar to the king, then the\nlatter's reply and finally Wulfgar's answer to Beowulf--before the\nvisitors enter.\n\nWe may compare also the formulae used in greetings to strangers. Thus\nin Od. I 169 ff. Telemachos addresses the disguised Athene as follows:\n\"Now come, tell me this and declare it plainly: Who of men art thou,\nand whence? Where are thy city and thy parents? And (tell me) upon\nwhat sort of a ship thou hast come\"--with several other questions.\nAnother case occurs in III 71 ff., where Nestor is greeting Telemachos:\n\"Sirs, who are ye, and whence do ye sail the watery paths? Is it upon\nsome enterprise, or do ye wander over the sea at random, like pirates\nwho rove, risking their lives and bringing evil to men of other\nlands?\" Beowulf receives a somewhat similar greeting from the Danish\ncoast-guard, when he lands (v. 237 ff.): \"What warriors are ye that\nthus have come clad in coats of mail, bringing hither your lofty ship\nover the waters along the high road of the sea?\" And again, shortly\nafterwards (v. 251 ff): \"Now must I know your origin, before ye start\nhence and proceed further as spies into the land of the Danes. Ye\ndwellers afar, ye who traverse the sea, hear now my fixed resolve. Best\nis it with speed to make known whence ye are come.\"\n\nAgain, both poems like to dwell upon the emotions felt in greeting or\nbidding farewell to friends. Thus in Od. XVI 14 ff. it is stated that\nEumaios \"came up to his lord and kissed his head and both his fair eyes\nand both his hands, and the hot tears fell from him. As an affectionate\nfather greets his son when he returns from a distant land after nine\nyears absence--an only son and well loved (?), for whose sake he has\nendured many hardships--even so then did the noble swineherd kiss\ngodlike Telemachos all over and embrace him as one escaped from death.\"\nWith this we may compare the account of Hrothgar's farewell to Beowulf\n(v. 1870 ff.): \"Then did the king of noble lineage, the prince of the\nScyldingas, kiss that best of squires and clasp him round the neck.\nTears fell from him, as he stood there with his grey hair. Aged and\nvenerable as he was, he felt uncertain, indeed he thought it unlikely,\nthat they would ever meet again in spirited converse. So dear was this\nman to him that he could not restrain his heart's emotion; but in his\nbreast, fast bound within his heart, a secret longing for the beloved\nman burnt in his blood.\"\n\nThe frequent use of similes, as in the last passage from the Odyssey,\nis one of the chief features in which Greek heroic poetry differs from\nTeutonic. Sometimes however the same kind of picture is brought before\nus in a different way. Thus among the commonest Homeric similes are\nthose derived from hunting scenes. A typical example occurs in Il. XV\n271 ff.: \"As when hounds and men of the country chase a horned stag or\na wild goat, and it is saved by a precipitous rock or dense wood, and\nthey cannot succeed in finding it,\" etc. With this may be compared a\npassage in Beowulf describing the pool in which the demons had made\ntheir lair (v. 1369 ff.): \"Though the heath-ranger, the stag of mighty\nhorns, may make his way to the forest when beset by hounds after a long\nchase, he will yield up his spirit and his life on the brink before he\nwill be willing to shelter his head therein.\"\n\nOccasionally we meet with similes of a more ambitious, not to say\nextravagant, character, as in Il. II 455 ff., where the gleam arising\nfrom the bronze armour of the Achaean army is compared to the blaze\nproduced by a forest fire. For this also we find parallels in Teutonic\npoetry, e.g. Finn 35 f.: \"A gleam arose from the swords, as though\nFinn's fortress were all on fire.\"\n\nIn the use of epithets and poetical expressions many remarkable\nparallels are to be found. Some of these are merely of a descriptive\ncharacter, e.g. \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bd\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 (Od. XVI 365) beside _windige\nnaessas_ (Beow. 1359), and some are little more than circumlocutions,\ne.g. \u03c5\u1f37\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, _Geata bearn_, for \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af, _Geatas_. In other cases\nhowever a distinct metaphor is involved, as when ships are called \u1f01\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 (Od. IV 708), corresponding to the Anglo-Saxon _brimhengest_,\nwhich is probably an epic word, though it does not occur in the extant\nfragments. In particular note should be taken of the metaphorical terms\napplied to kings, e.g. \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u1ff6\u03bd which may be compared with _folces\nhyrde_, \u1f15\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd with _eodur Scyldinga_, and perhaps also \u03bf\u1f56\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd with the very common expression _eorla hleo_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe characteristics which we have been discussing up till now affect\nonly the language and style of the two groups of poems. But it is to be\nobserved that they possess also certain common features which appear\nto be of deeper significance. Thus such expressions as \u1f44\u03bb\u03b2\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03ad\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\nor _wigspeda gewiofu_ ('the webs of success in war') are probably to\nbe traced to a primitive religious conception, which may be seen more\nclearly in Od. VII 196 ff.: \"There he shall experience afterwards\nwhatever Fate and the stern \u039a\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 ('spinning women') spun for him\nwhen he was born[496].\" For the prevalence of similar ideas among the\nTeutonic peoples we may refer to Helgakvi\u00f0a Hundingsbana, I 3 f.,\nGylfaginning, cap. 15, Ni\u00e1ls Saga, cap. 157, and above all to the Saga\naf Nornagesti (cap. 11), which presents such a remarkable parallel to\nthe story of Althaia and Meleagros.\n\nSomewhat clearer evidence of a common religious conception is furnished\nby Beow. 2124 ff., a passage which we have already quoted (p. 54). The\nrite of 'paying the due of fire' (\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2) to a dead man is\noften mentioned in the Iliad (e.g. VII 79 f., XXII 342 f., XXIII 76;\ncf. XXIV 37 f.) and undoubtedly had a religious significance. This may\nbe seen especially from the speech of Elpenor in Od. XI 71 ff.: \"There\nI exhort thee then, my lord, to be mindful of me and not to leave me\nbehind unlamented and unburied, abandoning me when thou goest away,\nlest I bring down wrath from the gods upon thee. But burn me up with my\narms, all that I possess, and construct for me a barrow upon the shore\nof the grey sea, the memorial of an unfortunate man, so that I may be\nknown even to those who shall be hereafter.\"\n\nIt will be observed that this passage, apart from its religious\nbearing, expresses a desire on the part of the speaker that his memory\nmay not be forgotten. Here we are brought to one of the most striking\ncharacteristics of heroic poetry, both Greek and Teutonic, namely\nthe constantly expressed thirst for fame, both during one's own life\nand in after times. As a typical example we may take a passage from\nHector's speech before his combat with Aias (Il. VII 85 ff.): \"I will\ngive up his body to the longhaired Achaeans, so that they may take him\nto the well-decked ships for burial and construct for him a memorial\nbarrow by the broad Hellespont. So shall it be said in time to come by\nsome one who lives in after days, when he sails his many-oared ship\nover the dark sea: 'This is the memorial of a man who died long ago,\nwho once upon a time was slain in his prowess by glorious Hector.' So\nshall it be said in time to come; and my fame shall never perish.\" In\nOd. XXIV 80 ff. Agamemnon's spirit describes how such honours had been\npaid to the remains of Achilles: \"Then over them our sacred host of\nwarriors from Argos constructed a great and splendid grave-mound, upon\na projecting headland above the broad Hellespont--so that it might\nbe conspicuous to men upon the sea, both those who are now alive and\nthose who shall be hereafter.\" With both these passages we may compare\nthe dying words of Beowulf (v. 2802 ff.): \"After the pyre is consumed\ncommand my famous warriors to construct a splendid grave-chamber where\nthe headland juts into the sea. It shall tower aloft on Hrones Naes as\na memorial for my people--so that in after days the name of 'Beowulf's\nBarrow' shall be familiar to mariners who ply their tall ships from\nafar over the dark waters.\"\n\nThe summit of a hero's ambition is to have his glory celebrated\neverywhere and for all time. Odysseus himself says (Od. IX 20) that his\nglory reaches to heaven. His wife bewails her troubles in the following\nwords (_ib._ IV 724): \"Before this I lost my brave lion-hearted husband\nwho was preeminent among the Danaoi for every kind of excellence. Far\nand wide was that brave man's glory spread, throughout Hellas and mid\nArgos.\" The extent of Beowulf's fame is proclaimed in more extravagant\nterms. One passage (v. 1221 ff.) has already been quoted (p. 88). We\nmay compare also v. 856 ff.: \"There was Beowulf's fame celebrated.\nFrequently and by many was it declared that whether to the south or\nnorth, between the two seas, on earth's broad expanse and beneath the\ncanopy of heaven, there existed no nobler warrior nor one more worthy\nto govern.\"\n\nThis love of glory is held up as an incitement to bravery in critical\nsituations, as in Wald. I 8 ff., where Hildegyth encourages the hero as\nfollows: \"O son of Aelfhere, a day is come which without doubt has in\nstore for thee one or other of two issues--either to lose thy life or\nto possess lasting glory among mortals.\" For the alternative form of\nexpression, though used from a different point of view, we may compare\nSocos' speech in Il. XI 430 ff.: \"O far-famed Odysseus, today thou\nshalt either be able to boast over two sons of Hippasos--that thou hast\nslain such men as we are and robbed us of our arms--or smitten beneath\nmy spear thou shalt lose thy life.\"\n\nThe last passage introduces us to another prominent characteristic of\nheroic poetry, namely the boasting of warriors over their own personal\nprowess and the deeds they have performed or are going to perform.\nSometimes this is represented as taking place in the banqueting hall,\nas in Il. XX 83 ff., where the disguised Apollo thus taunts Aineias:\n\"Aineias, thou counseller of the Trojans, where now is thy boasting,\nin which thou didst vow to the princes of the Trojans, when quaffing\nthy wine, that thou wouldst try thy strength in open battle against\nAchilles son of Peleus!\" We may compare Beow. 480 ff.: \"Often enough\nhave scions of combat vowed over the ale-cup, when drunken with beer,\nthat they would abide Grendel's onset in the hall with their terrible\nswords.\" Beowulf himself indulges in a similar boast (v. 636 ff.): \"I\nam resolved to perform a deed of knightly prowess or to meet with my\nlife's end in this mead-hall.\"\n\nAgain, it is by boasting of much the same kind that warriors make\nthemselves known to one another when they meet in battle. A typical\nexample occurs in Finn 24 ff.: \"Sigeferth is my name. I am a prince of\nthe Secgan and a rover known far and wide. Many hardships and stern\nencounters have I endured. Here too thou shalt have for certain (i.e.\nI shall not draw back from) whichever course (i.e. war or peace) thou\ndost prefer to take with me.\" We may compare Il. XIII 448 ff., where\nIdomeneus makes himself known to Deiphobos: \"Now stand forth thyself\nto face me, that thou mayest see what sort of a scion of Zeus is come\nhere. First Zeus begat Minos to be ruler of Crete, and Minos again\nbegat the blameless Deucalion; and Deucalion begat me to be lord\nover many men in broad Crete. But now have ships brought me hither\nwith consequences evil to thee and to thy father and the rest of the\nTrojans.\"\n\nIt will be seen that in this passage Idomeneus prides himself as much\non his ancestry[497] as on his own prowess. The idea of inherited\nvalour finds expression again in Il. V 252 ff., where Diomedes says\nto Sthenelos: \"Exhort me not to flight, for I am sure thou wilt not\npersuade me. Nowise inbred in me is it to fight a runaway battle,\nneither to cower in fear. My courage is steadfast still.\" Practically\nthe same idea appears in Beow. 2694 ff.: \"Then, as I have been told,\nin the national king's dire need the knight stood upright and showed\nforth his prowess--strength and valour such as was inbred in him.\"\n\nThe feeling of pride in a noble family becomes clearly noticeable also\non occasions when the family is threatened with extinction. Beowulf's\nfarewell words to Wiglaf are (v. 2814 ff.): \"Thou art the last remnant\nof our house, even of Waegmund's line. All my kinsmen in their knightly\nprowess has Fate swept off to their doom. I myself must follow them.\"\nWe may compare Od. XIV 180 f., though here the speaker, Eumaios, is\nonly a dependent of the house: \"On his return home the illustrious\nsuitors are lying in wait for him, in order that the seed of godlike\nArceisios may vanish nameless from Ithaca.\"\n\nLastly, the heroic spirit shows itself in the exhortations of\nprinces to their followers. As an instance we may quote a verse\nwhich occurs several times, in speeches of Hector and Patroclos:\n\"Be men, my friends, and set your minds upon impetuous valour.\" The\nsame exhortation, though in a more elaborate form, occurs in Finn 10\nff.: \"But awake now, my warriors, have your hands ready (or 'take\nyour mail-coats'), be mindful of your prowess, leap forth in the\nforefront (?), be stout of heart.\"\n\nIt is true that these last two passages would in themselves be\nappropriate in any martial poetry. But we must take the context into\naccount. Patroclos immediately (XVI 271 f.) adds the words \"in order\nthat we may do honour to the son of Peleus, who is by far the best\nof the men of Argos.\" So in Finn 40 f. we are told that \"never was a\nnobler recompense paid for sweet mead than was (then) rendered to Hnaef\nby his bachelors.\" The same thought occurs elsewhere in the English\npoems, e.g. in Beow. 2634 ff., where Wiglaf is exhorting his comrades:\n\"I remember the time when we were receiving mead, when in the beer-hall\nwe pledged ourselves to our lord who gave us these bracelets, that\nif need like this befell him we would repay the battle-harness, the\nhelmets and sharp swords.\" And again, shortly afterwards (v. 2646 ff.):\n\"Now is the day come that our liege-lord needs the strength of brave\nwarriors. Let us draw near to help our war-chief, so long as the heat\nof the fierce and terrible flames shall last.\"\n\nThe underlying idea is clearly that which is described by Tacitus\n(_Germ._ 14) in his account of the comitatus of the ancient Germans:\n\"The _principes_ fight for victory, but the _comites_ fight for their\n_princeps_[498].\" And this description is probably true of the Homeric\nGreeks just as much as of the Teutonic heroes. The terms used in the\ntwo sets of poems (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd--_\u00feegn_, i.e. _comes_; \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be--_dryhten_, i.e.\n_princeps_), seem to correspond to one another almost exactly, though\nit is not easy to find a satisfactory rendering for them in modern\nEnglish. For kings too, especially such as are of preeminent position,\nwe find in each case a very similar expression (\u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd--_eorla\ndryhten_), which properly denotes the relationship of liege-lord.\n\nIn both cases alike the leading idea of the Heroic Age may be fittingly\nsummed up in the phrase \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. This is practically equivalent\nto the Anglo-Saxon _dom_, with which we have dealt above (p. 87 f.).\nIt is essential to notice that the object so much prized is personal\nglory. In Hector's speech before his combat with Aias (cf. p. 325) the\nglory which would result from the combat to the hero or his opponent is\nthe only subject touched upon. No consideration is taken of any effect\nwhich might be produced thereby upon the fortunes of the war.\n\nThe same characteristic appears throughout the passages which we have\nquoted and countless others. Occasionally we hear also of pride of\nfamily, but scarcely ever of any truly national feeling. Patroclos\nexhorts his men to bravery (Il. XVI 270 ff.) in order that they may\nwin glory not for the Achaean nation but for their own personal lord;\nand he adds further that by so doing they will bring shame upon the\nnational leader. Achilles himself retires from the conflict owing to a\npersonal wrong, and only returns to it in order to avenge his friend.\nThe same phenomena appear in the English poems. That Wiglaf whose\nbravery is said to be 'inbred' (cf. p. 328) was the son of a certain\nWeohstan, whose great achievement was the slaying of the Swedish prince\nEanmund. Yet Eanmund was at this time apparently under the protection\nof Heardred, king of the Geatas, who also lost his life in the same\nwar. Weohstan however, though he belonged to the Geatas, was in the\nservice of Onela, their enemy. It would seem then that he was fighting\nagainst his own nation. Such cases appear to have been by no means\nuncommon in the Teutonic Heroic Age. For it was customary at that time\nfor young noblemen to take service under foreign princes; and the\nobligations which personal service imposed were held to be superior to\nall others.\n\nLove of home and zeal in its defence are of course frequently mentioned\nin both groups of poems. We may refer to the common phrase \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd. Most frequently however, as we might expect, these\nfeatures appear in connection with the Trojans. In Il. XII 243, when\nPulydamas has urged retreat in consequence of an omen, Hector replies:\n\"The best of all omens is to fight in defence of our country.\" Priam\nuses the same expression (_ib._, XXIV 499 f.) when he comes to plead\nwith Achilles for his son's body: \"He preserved my city and its\ninhabitants, even Hector whom thou hast now slain as he fought in\ndefence of his country.\" These feelings may be regarded as forms of\npatriotism; but it is patriotism of a distinctly practical kind, as may\nbe seen from Il. XV 494 ff., where Hector is addressing his followers:\n\"Now fight in close formation at the ships. Whosoever of you through\nshot or blow meets with death and fate, let him die. Not unseemly is it\nfor him to die fighting in defence of this country. He will leave his\nwife and children in safety, his house also and his estate unharmed,\nif the Achaeans depart with their ships to their own dear fatherland.\"\nMuch the same feelings are expressed in the English poems. As an\nexample we may take Beow. 520 ff., where Unferth is describing the\nreturn of Breca after his swimming contest: \"Welcome to his subjects\nwas he when he made his way to his own dear home, the land of the\nBrondingas and his beautiful sacred city[499] where people, city and\ntreasures belonged to him.\" We may refer also to Widsith, v. 119 ff.:\n\"I have visited Wulfhere and Wyrmhere. Often enough did they wage war\nunceasing, when around the forest of the Vistula the Gothic army\nwith their sharp swords had to defend their ancient domain[500] from\nAttila's subjects.\" And again (_ib._, v. 127 ff.): \"Often enough did\nthe spear fly whistling and shrieking, from that troop into a hostile\narmy, when Wudga and Hama guarded their golden treasures and (the lives\nof) their men and women.\"\n\nSuch passages as these afford abundant evidence for patriotism of the\npractical kind. But this is not the same thing as national pride. We\nshall best be able to appreciate the special characteristics of heroic\npoetry in this respect by comparing it with other martial poems, dating\nfrom later times. An excellent example of national pride is furnished\nby the well-known epitaph on Leonidas and the Spartans who perished\nat Thermopylai. We may also quote the 'Laconian Embaterion' commonly\nincluded among the fragments of Tyrtaios: \"O ye youths, whose fathers\nhave been citizens of Sparta, the home of heroes, come, hold forth the\nshield in your left hand and cast the spear with good courage. Regard\nnot your life, for so to do is not Sparta's ancestral custom.\" Other\ngood examples may be found in the works of the early elegiac poets.\n\nWhat perhaps deserves notice above all in poetry of this type is the\nuse of the first person plural with reference to exploits performed\nby the poet's nation in bygone times--a form of speech which seems\nto be quite foreign to heroic poetry. An example occurs in Tyrtaios'\nEunomia (fragm. 2): \"This city has been given to the Heracleidai by\nZeus himself, the son of Cronos and husband of fair-crowned Hera.\nTogether with them we forsook breezy Erineos and made our way to\nPelops' broad island.\" Here the reference is to the first arrival of\nthe Dorians in the Peloponnesos. Another case may be found in the poem\non the Messenian war (fragm. 5): \"... our king Theopompos dear to the\ngods, by whose help we captured spacious Messene.... Round about it\n(or 'for its sake') war was waged for nineteen years, ever without\nceasing, by the fathers of our fathers, warriors who possessed the\nspirit of endurance.\" A similar usage appears in Mimnermos, fragm. 9:\n\"On quitting steep Pylos, the town of Neleus, we came in ships to the\npleasant land of Asia, and at fair Colophon with overmastering strength\nwe took up our abode, beginning the arduous assault. Thence in turn,\nstarting from the river Aleis, by the will of the gods we took Aeolian\nSmyrna[501].\" Both the foundation of Colophon and the capture of Smyrna\ntook place long before the poet's time.\n\nThe same patriotic sentiment is to be found in the martial poetry of\nlater times in England. Thus in the poem on the battle of Brunanburh\n(v. 20 ff.) we are told that \"throughout the whole day the West Saxons\nwith troops of horse pressed on in pursuit of the enemy's forces.\nFiercely they cut down the fugitives from behind with swords sharpened\non the grindstone. Nor did the Mercians refuse stern hand-to-hand\ncombat to any of the warriors who in the ship's bosom had followed\nAnlaf over the rolling waters to our land, to meet their doom in\nbattle. On the field of action lay five young kings stretched lifeless\nby the sword; and with them seven of Anlaf's earls, and a countless\nhost both of the seamen and the Scots.\" And again (v. 65 ff.):\n\"Never in this island before now, so far as the books of our ancient\nhistorians can tell us, has greater slaughter been made of an army by\nthe edge of the sword--since the time when the Angles and Saxons made\ntheir way hither from the east over the wide seas, invading Britain,\nwhen warriors eager for glory, proud forgers of war, overcame the Welsh\nand won for themselves a country.\"\n\nWe need not hesitate to interpret the last part of this quotation as\nan expression of national consciousness, just as much as in the poem\nof Mimnermos given above, although it does not use the first person\nwith reference to the achievements of the Saxon invaders. But the poem\nas a whole differs essentially from the heroic type owing to the fact\nthat--though the princes are mentioned incidentally--it is permeated\nthroughout by the sense of national rather than individual glory.\n\nThus far we have been dealing with individual passages in the poems.\nNow we must consider briefly the motives of the stories and the\ncharacteristics for which the heroes are celebrated. The story of\nBeowulf consists of a series of adventures in which the hero seeks to\ndisplay his prowess in encounters with monsters. The story of Finn, if\nwe may form an opinion from the fragmentary evidence at our disposal,\ndealt with a fatal quarrel between two brothers-in-law, followed by\nrevenge. The theme of Waldhere's story is the elopement, or rather\nescape, of lovers and the bravery shown by the hero in defence of his\nbride. The term elopement may more properly be applied to the story\nof He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni, whatever was the original form of its ending. A\ncounterpart to this is furnished by the story of Hagbar\u00f0r and Sign\u00fd,\nwhich ended tragically in the death of the lovers. The story of Sigur\u00f0r\ndeals with a woman's revenge, brought about by disappointed love. The\ntheme of the story of Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli is the revenge undertaken by\nthem for the death of their sister. Revenge is likewise the theme of\nIngeld's story--in this case for the death of a father. The story of\nOffa is an instance of heroism in single combat. In the various stories\nconnected with Dietrich von Bern attention is centred chiefly on the\nbravery, loyalty and resourcefulness of the hero and his knights.\n\nIt will be seen that throughout the heroic poetry of the Teutonic\npeoples, in episodes as well as in the main stories, the chief motif\nis almost invariably love or revenge or personal bravery. The same\nremark applies obviously enough to Greek heroic poetry--to the Iliad\nand Odyssey, as well as to the stories of Heracles, Iason and the\nrest. The characteristics too for which the heroes are distinguished\nare on the whole very much the same in both cases--strength, courage,\nresourcefulness, generosity, hospitality. The characters of Beowulf and\nHrothgar may appeal to us more than those of Achilles and Nestor, but\nthe main outlines are very similar. If there is any difference worth\nnoting in this respect between the two sets of poems it is that the\nGreek attach more importance to personal beauty--a feature which only\nbecomes prominent in the later forms of the Teutonic stories.\n\nNow let us turn for a moment to the heroes of 'post-heroic' times.\nDuring the centuries which immediately followed the Heroic Age we\nhear of many princes and other persons who rose to fame both in\nEngland and on the Continent. Sometimes this fame was acquired through\nsuccessful warfare; but it is as generals rather than as warriors\nthat such persons are celebrated. More frequently they are known to\nus as legislators, founders of institutions, promoters of religion\nand protectors of the public peace. In this country we may think of\nsuch persons as the Kentish king Aethelberht, the Northumbrian kings\nEdwin and Oswald, the Mercian king Offa, and, above all, of Alfred\nthe Great--not to mention numerous prominent ecclesiastics. In Greece\nthe number of names known to us during the corresponding period is\nextremely small. Yet the most prominent names which we meet with at\nthe dawn of the historical period are those of legislators and public\nbenefactors, such as Zaleucos and Solon. In earlier times by far the\nbest known name is that of the Spartan legislator Lycurgos, whether he\nwas really a historical person or a character of mythical origin. We\nmay perhaps compare him with that Wiger Spa, 'a heathen in the heathen\nage,' whose authority is referred to in King Byrger's preamble to the\nLaw of the Uppland Swedes.\n\nA similar character is borne by the traditional heroes of nations which\nhave no Heroic Age. We may instance Bruteno and Widowuto the legendary\nfounders and legislators of the state of the ancient Prussians. The\nsame is true of the early kings of Rome, Romulus, Numa, Servius\nTullius and the founders of the Republic. The essential feature which\ndistinguishes these characters from those of the Heroic Age is the fact\nthat they are known chiefly, not for what they performed or experienced\nduring their lives, but for the effects of their doings upon later\ngenerations.\n\nThe explanation of this difference is no doubt to be sought largely\nin the nature of the records. For a modern analogy to the stories of\nSigur\u00f0r or Achilles we should turn naturally to a romance or novel;\nfor those of Offa or Lycurgos analogy would be sought rather in the\nbiography of a statesman[502]. But it must be clearly recognised that\nthe difference here does not lie between historical and unhistorical.\nAttila was a man of flesh and blood, no less certainly than Offa,\nwhile the historical existence of Lycurgos is as much debated as\nthat of Achilles. And what shall we say with regard to such a\ncharacter as Romulus? The difference lies rather between political\nand non-political, or--to speak more accurately--between national\nand non-national. Offa's fame is inseparably bound up with the\naggrandisement and reorganisation of the Mercian kingdom. Lycurgos and\nRomulus are scarcely conceivable without Sparta or Rome. But Sigur\u00f0r\nand Achilles might belong to any Teutonic or Greek community; in the\nformer case indeed the hero's nationality is not known for certain.\nWe have seen that the heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples had what\nmay be called an international circulation from the beginning; and we\nhave no reason for doubting that in the Heroic Age itself the same was\nthe case in Greece. On the other hand the memory of the later heroes\nand their achievements was preserved only, or almost only, in the\nrecords and traditions of individual states. The interest to which\nstories of this latter group appeal is in general limited to the hero's\nown state; we have no evidence that such stories were international\nproperty[503]. It is the fact that the interest of the heroic stories\nwas both individual and universal--i.e. that it lay in individuals not\nessentially bound up with a given community--which fitted them for\ninternational circulation.\n\nBut this difference of interest is itself a matter which calls for\nexplanation. If we are to trust the evidence of the records it is\ndue to differences in the ideas which animated heroic and non-heroic\nsociety[504]. Among these we may note especially an essential\ndifference in the conception of the state. With this question we shall\nhave to deal more fully in a later chapter. It may be indicated here\nhowever that in the Heroic Age the state appears to have been regarded\nas little more than the property of an individual--or rather perhaps\nof a family, which itself was intimately connected with a number of\nother families in similar positions. The decline and disappearance\nof kingship in Greece during the eighth century presupposes of course\nthat such a conception had long ceased to retain its vitality. And even\namong the Teutonic peoples, which usually preserved the institution of\nkingship, we find abundant evidence for a similar change of view. Among\nthe Franks kingship had long been a mere shadow when the non-royal\nPippin took the throne in 752. In England we do not meet with non-royal\nkings until more than a century later; but even by Bede's time it is\nclear that the kingdom had come to be looked upon as something more\nthan the property of the royal family.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen once the characteristics of the spirit of the Heroic Age have\nbeen fully recognised they will be found to explain several features\nin the stories which have often been regarded as incredible. One of\nthese is the fact that wars are generally represented as arising out\nof the personal quarrels or jealousies of princes, or out of wrongs\nperpetrated by one prince upon another. Thus it has been assumed by\nmany scholars that the story of the abduction of Helen is of mythical\norigin, not on account of any intrinsic improbability contained in\nit, but because it is founded on a motif which is extremely common in\nfolk-tales. But it has been pointed out above (p. 265) that the reason\nwhy the abduction motif is common in folk-tales lies in the fact that\nunder unsettled social conditions such occurrences were common in real\nlife. The conditions of the Heroic Age, whether Greek or Teutonic, were\ndoubtless not normally so unsettled that the abduction of a queen or\nprincess could fail to attract attention. In the case of the wife of a\ndistinguished king it can scarcely be doubted that such an event would\nproduce a profound sensation; and it is to this, we may presume, that\nthe story in the first place owed its celebrity. But the part played\nby women in international quarrels during the Teutonic Heroic Age must\nnot be overlooked. In addition to the stories of which love adventures\nform the main theme (cf. p. 333) we may allude to such cases as Beow.\n2930 ff., where Haethcyn is said to have carried off the Swedish queen\nwith consequences disastrous to himself. Above all however it is well\nto bear in mind the story of the war between the Angli and the Warni\n(cf. p. 97 f.), a war which owed its origin to Radiger's repudiation\nof his marriage contract with the English king's sister. We have seen\nthat this story comes not from a poem, but from the work of a strictly\ncontemporary Roman historian.\n\nNor can it be said that this case stands alone. According to Gregory\nof Tours (III 6) the overthrow of the Burgundian kingdom was due to\nthe instigation of Hrothhild, who implored her sons to exact vengeance\nfor the murder of her parents--a case not unlike the Norse version\nof the story of Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli. Hildeberht's invasion of Spain was\nundertaken in answer to messages from his sister Hlothhild, who had\nbeen illtreated by her husband, the Visigothic king Amalaric (_ib._,\nIII 10). The dissensions which eventually brought about the downfall\nof the Thuringian kingdom had their origin in the proud and jealous\ncharacter of Amalaberga, the wife of Irminfrith (_ib._, III 4). Unless\nwe are prepared to shut our eyes to the plain evidence of history\nwe are bound to recognise that the personal feelings of queens and\nprincesses were among the very strongest of the factors by which the\npolitics of the Heroic Age were governed.\n\nThere has undoubtedly been a tendency among modern historians\nto neglect the personal element in early Teutonic history and\nto concentrate attention upon the movements of peoples and upon\n'constitutional' changes. The feature with which we have just been\ndealing is only one of several which owing to this neglect have been\nregarded as essentially 'poetic' motives, the origin of which must\nbe sought in myth or fiction. Decisive evidence to the contrary is\nfurnished by writers of the sixth century. Certainly the picture of\nTeutonic court life which they give produces a different impression\nfrom that which we gain from the poems. The atmosphere suggested\nby the latter is one of adventure and romance, whereas the former\nconvey an idea of reckless brutality. Yet it is only necessary to\nplace the two sets of records side by side in order to see that the\none is complementary to the other--that the difference lies not in\nthe subjects treated but in the point of view from which they are\nregarded. Gregory (II 28) records without comment or explanation that\nthe Burgundian king Gundobad slew his brother Hilperic (Hrothhild's\nfather) with the sword and drowned his wife with a stone tied to her\nneck. If this incident had been treated in heroic poetry we should\ndoubtless gain a very different impression. Different too would be\nthe impression conveyed by the story of Sigur\u00f0r, if we had it from a\nRoman historian. But when the two stories are compared it cannot be\nsaid that the picture which the poems present of the Burgundian kingdom\nunder Guthhere is incompatible with the picture which history gives\nus of the Burgundian kingdom under Gundobad, some fifty years later.\nNo true impression of the Heroic Age can be obtained by crediting the\nyouthful kings of unlearned communities with a knowledge of political\nprinciples which we have acquired from long study of the history of\nmany nations; and it is equally futile to seek for grounds of policy in\nactions which very frequently were dictated solely by passion. Ambition\nwas no doubt a factor, as in all stages of society. But the form which\nit seems to have taken as a rule was purely personal and directed\ntowards the acquisition of wealth or glory rather than with any view of\nestablishing the kingdom upon a permanent basis[505].\n\nAnother feature to which exception has been taken is the fact that\nin battle scenes the fighting is generally represented as a series\nof single combats between the various leading men. Here again the\nobjection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the conditions\nof heroic warfare. In the first place we have no reason for doubting\nthat in both the periods with which we are dealing the leaders were\nfar better armed than the rank and file of the forces. In hand to hand\nfighting the possession of defensive armour, helmet and mail-coat,\nconstitutes an overwhelming advantage. Secondly, the passion for\npersonal glory, which is so prominent in the poems, must have prompted\nthe ambitious man to pick out the most distinguished opponents. If\nhe was a 'squire' success would bring rich rewards[506]. But even\nthe leaders themselves, as among the Germans of Tacitus' time[507],\nwere doubtless expected to distinguish themselves by preeminence in\nbravery, rather than by skilful generalship. Thirdly, and this is the\nmost important point, the general object aimed at in a battle was not\nto gain a strategic advantage but to kill the leaders. Very often this\nmeant the destruction of the enemy's organisation. At times indeed it\nappears that the death or capture of a king led forthwith to the end of\nhostilities. Thus in the battle of Strassburg in 357, when the Romans\ncaptured the Alamannic king Chonodomarius, his personal retinue, to\nthe number of two hundred, gave themselves up voluntarily to share\nhis captivity[508]. And in Beowulf we see from more than one passage\nthat when the king was slain the heart of the resistance was broken.\nUnder such conditions we may well believe that the direction to 'fight\nneither with small nor great, save only with the king,' was a piece of\nperfectly sound policy.\n\nWe have to take account moreover of another element, somewhat strange\nto modern ideas, namely the intense eagerness to get possession of a\nfallen enemy's arms. In the battle scenes of the Iliad this feature is\nconstantly to the fore; indeed the most severe conflicts usually take\nplace over the bodies of warriors. In the English poems it is much\nthe same. We may quote Beow. 2985 ff.: \"Thereupon the warrior (Eofor)\ndespoiled his opponent. He took from Ongentheo his iron mail-coat and\nhis sharp and hilted sword, together with his helmet, and brought the\nold man's accoutrements to Hygelac.\" And again v. 2613 ff.: \"To him\n(Eanmund) Weohstan brought death in combat by the sword's edge; and\nto his kinsmen he presented the burnished helmet, the ring-formed\nmail-coat and the ancient sword of giant workmanship--though the latter\nwas returned to him by Onela.\" It will be seen that the Teutonic\nwarriors, who in both these cases are 'squires,' render up the spoils\nto their lords, whereas the Greek princes keep them for themselves; but\nwe need not doubt that they expected an equivalent reward.\n\nThe article chiefly coveted seems to have been the coat of mail. In\nWald. II 16 ff. the hero says to Guthhere: \"Take from me the grey\nmail-coat, if thou dare; for thou seest how I am worn out with battle.\nUpon my shoulders here stands an heirloom from Aelfhere; good it is\nand ..., adorned with gold, a superb garment for a prince to possess,\nwhen his hand is defending life's treasure from his foes.\" Such\narticles were doubtless very costly, and often, as in this case, they\nwere handed on from generation to generation. Beowulf's coat of mail\nhad belonged to his grandfather, and was believed to be the workmanship\nof Weland. Before his encounter with Grendel he charges the king of the\nDanes to send it back to Hygelac in the event of his death. A coat of\nmail which was found intact at Vi in Fyn contains about twenty thousand\nrings, and it has been calculated that such an article would take a\nsingle workman nearly a whole year to make[509].\n\nIt is to be remembered further that wealthy princes, prompted no doubt\nby love of display, were in the habit of carrying about their persons\na considerable amount of gold. Glaucos indeed is said to have gone to\nbattle in golden armour worth a hundred oxen (Il. VI 235 f.). Hygelac,\nwhen he was slain, was wearing the magnificent necklet which Wealhtheo\nhad given to Beowulf (v. 1195 ff.). Historical records give evidence to\nthe same effect[510]; and there can be little doubt that the spoils of\nsuch kings often amounted to a considerable fortune. If, in addition\nto spoils of this kind, account is taken of the chances of booty and\nransoms, not only after a general victory but also in incidental and\nmore or less private forays[511], it will be seen that warfare of\nthe heroic type offered very substantial inducements, apart from the\nacquisition of glory.\n\nIt is not to be supposed that such warfare was really of an effective\ncharacter. Even in the Iliad itself (VI 67 ff.) a warning is raised\nagainst it by the old Nestor, who is represented (_ib._ II 555) as an\nexceptionally skilful general, but his advice seems to be unheeded.\nBetween two armies of the heroic type the issue had to be decided, if\nat all, by a pitched battle. Sheltered behind fortifications, even\nan inferior army had not much to fear. In that case the people most\nexposed to danger were what we should call non-combatants--not only\nthe women and children and unwarlike dependents of the combatants\nthemselves[512], but also any neighbouring communities who might be\ncaught unawares by bands of hungry warriors.\n\nOn the other hand against organised forces, like those of the later\nSpartans or the Romans, at all events if commanded by generals who\nfollowed a definite plan of campaign, the Homeric Achaeans would have\nhad no chance after the first encounter. This may be seen especially\nfrom the history of the campaigns against the Italian Gauls, who appear\nto have employed a very similar method of warfare. The Saxons and\nother northern peoples owed their successes largely to the rapidity\nof their movements, combined with the fact that they had command of\nthe sea. But, so far as we know, they seldom or never had to deal with\nany considerable Roman army. In Britain their procedure was probably\nsimilar to that followed by the Scandinavian invaders in the Viking\nAge; but the latter were unable to cope with prolonged and organised\nresistance, such as was offered by Alfred the Great. The armies of the\nGoths at the height of their power were doubtless more formidable; but\nthey had probably learnt much from long experience of the Romans, both\nas foes and allies. It is not to be forgotten however that supremacy\ncame ultimately to the Franks, who of all the Teutonic peoples seem to\nhave been least affected by the spirit of the Heroic Age.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[496] We may compare such expressions as _me \u00feaet wyrd gewaef_ in the\nAnglo-Saxon Rhyming Poem (Cod. Exon.), v. 70.\n\n[497] We may compare a passage from the poem on the battle of Maldon,\nwhich largely follows heroic poetry (cf. pp. 3, 97). In v. 216 ff.\nAelfwine, one of Byrhtnoth's knights, boasts as follows: \"I will make\nmy lineage known to all, that I come of a great Mercian house. My\ngrandfather, Ealhhelm by name, was a wise earl and blessed with worldly\nprosperity. Not against me shall knights bring public reproach, that I\nam willing to leave this army and make my way home, now that my prince\nlies slain in battle.\" Ealhhelm held office in the reign of Edmund I.\n\n[498] _iam uero infame in omnem uitam ac probrosum superstitem principi\nsuo ex acie recessisse. illum defendere, tueri, sua quoque fortia\nfacta gloriae eius assignare praecipuum sacramentum est. principes pro\nuictoria pugnant, comites pro principe._\n\n[499] _freo\u00f0oburh_, lit. 'city of peace.' The expression probably\nsprings from the sacred peace attaching to the king's dwelling, to\nwhich we find frequent allusions in the laws (Ine, \u00a7 6, Alfred, \u00a7 7,\netc.).\n\n[500] _ealdne e\u00feelstol._ If this expression is to be interpreted in a\nlocal sense ('seat of authority') it is possible to read the idea of\npatriotism as a sentiment into it; but my impression is that the poet\nmeans no more than defence of home. A different interpretation of the\npassage is given by Prof. Heusler (_S.-B. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_,\n1909, p. 926), according to whom it means \"Verteidigung des _eald\ne\u00feelstol_, des alten Erbthrones (nicht Stammsitzes).\"\n\n[501] For the translation of this fragment I am indebted to the\nkindness of Mr A. B. Cook.\n\n[502] This analogy applies perhaps also to the objects aimed at in\nthe two sets of records. Within certain limitations it may be said\nthat the object of the heroic stories is to entertain and that of\nunheroic records to instruct. The latter remark holds good not only for\nhistorical works but also for tribal traditions and tribal law. It is\nlikely that opportunity was taken to impart instruction of this type at\nfestal gatherings. We may quote a passage from Praetorius' _Deliciae\nPrussicae_ (ed. Pierson, p. 24) relating to a festal gathering of\nyoung people at a time when the Prussian Lithuanians had not yet been\nentirely converted. \"Darauf haben sie sich um die Eiche und Stein\nniedergesetzt, der Weydulut aber uf den Stein das Fell gelegt, sich\ndarauf gesetzet, einen Sermon gehalten von ihrem Herkommen und alten\nGebr\u00e4uchen, Glauben p. p., den Zemyna, den Perkuns und andere mehr\ngenennet.\" There is abundant evidence for the existence of similar\ntraditions among the Teutonic peoples from the earliest times--for\nwhich the reader may be referred to Dr Sch\u00fctte's interesting book\n_Oldsagn om Godtjod_ (especially pp. 118-197). But in heroic poetry,\nwhether Teutonic or Greek, references to the early traditions of a\nnation are extremely rare and practically limited to the ancestors\nof the royal family, while 'law' is the will of the ruler. For Greek\nparallels we must turn to works of the Hesiodic school and the elegiac\npoets.\n\nWith regard to historical works we have to remember that all records\ndating from the Heroic Age are of foreign origin. But it is certainly\nto be noted that the interest of the stories given by Gregory of Tours\nand other writers of the sixth century--in so far as they relate to\npersons of Teutonic blood--is essentially personal, and similar to that\nwhich characterises the poems. This is the more noteworthy since these\nstories are related from a totally different point of view (cf. p. 338\nf.).\n\n[503] Except in so far as (in the case of Teutonic stories) they are\nconnected with the Church.\n\n[504] I would call attention here to an interesting paper by Prof.\nHeusler (_S.-B. d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1909, p. 920 ff.),\nin which he seeks to show that the historical element in Teutonic\nheroic poetry has been exaggerated. The evidence adduced in favour\nof this view consists in the first place of unhistorical situations,\nchronological dislocations, etc. Most of the examples are taken from\nthe later forms of the stories (Stage IV of our scheme). We have\nalready discussed these phenomena (p. 152 ff.), and here I would only\nadd that the observation quoted from Prof. Murko's paper on p. 936,\nnote, may be applied, _mutatis mutandis_, to chronological as well\nas geographical relations. What interests us here however is the\nsecond piece of evidence brought forward by Prof. Heusler (p. 924\nf.). He fully recognises and admirably expresses the individualistic,\nnon-national spirit of Teutonic heroic poetry--as contrasted with that\nof the Old French epics: \"Es herrschen in unsrer Sage die pers\u00f6nlichen\nIdeen\".... \"Die germanische Sage kennt keinen Nationalfeind,\" etc.\nYet apparently he regards this phenomenon ('die pers\u00f6nliche Fabel')\nas a characteristic of the poetry only, and not of the society which\nproduced it. Now in order to prove that this is an 'unhistorical'\nelement evidence must be brought to show that the attitude of the\npoems--the early poems (Stage II)--does not faithfully reflect the\nspirit of the age. I know of no evidence to justify so startling a\nconclusion; on the contrary we shall see in the following chapters that\ncontemporary historical works frequently testify to the prevalence\nof the same ideas which we find expressed in the poems. Even the\nstatement that Teutonic heroic poetry is 'unpolitical' seems to me to\nrequire some reservation. Certainly it knows nothing of modern ideas of\npolitics. But have we any ground for disputing that it represents the\npolitics current in the courts in which it grew up? Lastly, objection\nmust be taken to the contrast drawn on p. 933 between Teutonic and\nGreek heroic poetry. So far as the Homeric evidence is concerned the\nobservations made here apply not to the poems as we have them but to\ncertain hypotheses regarding their 'pre-history,' with which we have\ndealt above (p. 267 ff.).\n\n[505] As a typical case we may cite the story of the Frankish prince\nHlothric (Greg. Tur., II 40), who at Clovis' suggestion caused his own\nfather to be murdered. He offered Clovis a share of the treasures, but\nwas himself killed by the envoys of the latter while he was bending\nover his father's treasure-chest.\n\n[506] In Beow. 2991 ff. we are told that Eofor, who slew the Swedish\nking Ongentheo, was rewarded by Hygelac with the hand of his only\ndaughter and an enormous grant of land and treasure.\n\n[507] Cf. _Germ._ 14: _cum uentum in aciem turpe principi uirtute\nuinci, turpe comitatui uirtutem principis non adaequare_. It is not\nto be doubted that princes of the Heroic Age did seek to display\ntheir prowess in single combats. The story of Theodric's combat with\nan Avar champion named Xerxer (Fredegar, _Chron._ II 57) appears\nto be based on an exploit for which we have contemporary evidence\nin Ennodius' Panegyric (p. 266 in Hartel's edition; cf. Jiriczek,\n_Deutsche Heldensagen_, I p. 140 f.), where the defeated warrior is\ncalled _Bulgarum ductor_. It is well known also that the princes of the\nancient Gauls were in the habit of engaging their enemies in single\ncombat. There is satisfactory historical evidence for two cases in\nwhich distinguished Romans proved victorious in such encounters (cf.\nD'Arbois de Jubainville, _La Civilisation des Celtes_, p. 17 ff.).\nThe period to which these notices refer may be described as a Gaulish\nHeroic Age (cf. p. 427 ff.).\n\n[508] Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, XVI 12. 60.\n\n[509] Cf. S. M\u00fcller, _Nordische Altertumskunde_, II p. 128.\n\n[510] Cf. especially Procopius' description of Totila at his last\nbattle (_Goth._ IV 31): \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f20\u03bc\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03ba \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f01\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[511] Even in time of peace merchants might turn into freebooters (cf.\nOd. XIV 262 ff.). Piracy indeed was scarcely regarded as disreputable\n(_ib._ III 72 ff.; cf. p. 322). The same conditions prevailed during\nthe Viking Age and doubtless also during the Teutonic Heroic Age.\n\n[512] As illustrations of the barbarities associated with warfare of\nthis type we may refer to the speech of Theodric, king of the Franks,\ngiven by Gregory, III 7, and to the behaviour of Theodberht's army\nin Italy, recorded by Procopius (_Goth._ II 25). At such a time the\natrocities which Greek tradition relates in connection with the fall of\nTroy would have caused little comment. Yet the early heroic poems give\nless evidence even than the Homeric poems for cruelty of this kind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nSOCIETY IN THE HEROIC AGE.\n\n\nThe evidence of the German poems for the social and political\nconditions of the Heroic Age cannot be regarded as trustworthy owing to\nthe lateness of the period in which they were composed. In principle\nthe same is true also of the Norse poems. These reflect the conditions\nof the Viking Age rather than those of the Heroic Age, though, as\nwe have already noted, the difference here is less marked. On the\nother hand, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon poems and the works of\ncontemporary Roman historians, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, Jordanes\nand Procopius, we have valuable evidence from the early Teutonic codes\nof law. Some of these, such as the Lex Salica and the Lex Burgundionum,\ndate from the first half of the sixth century or earlier, i.e. from\nthe Heroic Age itself, while a number of others--in particular we may\nnote the earliest English laws--belong to the following two centuries\nand show probably little deviation from the custom of the Heroic Age.\nAll the codes of course contain certain Roman or Christian elements;\nbut this influence in some cases goes back to the fifth century or even\nfurther.\n\nThe chief forces which governed the social system of that age were\nthe bonds of kinship and allegiance. The influence of the former\nextended not merely, as with us, to rights of succession and duties\nof guardianship over children and women. It was also the power by\nwhich the security of the property and person of each member of the\ncommunity was guaranteed. If a man received injury or insult, his\nkindred were bound to assist him to obtain redress. If he were slain\nthey had to exact vengeance or compensation from the slayer. On the\nother hand not only the slayer himself but every member of his kindred\nbecame liable to vengeance, and each had to pay his quota towards the\ncompensation (wergeld), just as it was divided among the kindred of the\nslain--the proportion varying in both cases according to the degree of\nrelationship. In case of bloodshed a certain sum had also to be paid\nto the king, even in the earliest times of which we have record; but\nthis sum seldom exceeded half the wergeld, and as a rule amounted to\nconsiderably less.\n\nThe character and size of the kindred appear to have varied in\ndifferent nations. Some laws speak of claims to succession as remote\nas the seventh degree, while the rights and duties connected with the\npayment and receipt of wergelds seem generally to have extended as far\nas third cousins, i.e. the descendants of great-great-grandparents.\nAgain, we hear sometimes of royal or noble families which bore a\ncommon name derived from some ancestor, real or mythical, from whom\ntheir power or prerogatives were believed to be inherited. Such were\nthe Oescingas, the Wuffingas and the Icelingas, the royal families\nof Kent, East Anglia and Mercia respectively; so also the Scyldungas\n(Ski\u00f6ldungar) among the Danes, the Merovingi among the Franks,\nand the Agilolfinga and other noble families among the Bavarians.\nPersons belonging to these families had probably--in some cases\ncertainly--special wergelds; and the throne or principality seems to\nhave been regarded as in some sense family property. Some writers\nbelieve that kindreds in general were permanent organisations of this\nkind, and that originally they held land, and possibly other property\nalso, in common. But this view goes a good deal beyond what the facts\nwarrant, at all events for the period with which we are dealing.\nIt is clear that at this time kinship on both sides was recognised\neverywhere; maternal relatives shared in the payment and receipt of\nwergelds with those on the father's side, though not always in the\nsame proportion. Moreover the idea that the inclusion of the maternal\nrelatives was due to an innovation cannot be maintained. Thus, in\nspite of the fact that the Frankish kings claimed the throne by direct\ndescent in the male line from Merovechus, there are clear indications\nthat Frankish law in its earliest form gave priority to the mother's\nside. No doubt on the whole the agnatic system of relationship had\nbecome predominant almost everywhere in the Heroic Age; but sufficient\ntraces of the opposite system remain to render it probable that a\nchange had taken place not so very far back[513].\n\nAny such change of course involves--or rather perhaps implies--a\nweakening in the force of the bonds of kinship; and of this we have\nvery clear evidence in the Heroic Age. Now it has often been pointed\nout that early Teutonic custom seems to have made no provision for the\ncase of homicide within the kindred. In such a case the persons on whom\nvengeance devolved would be identical, in part at least, with those\nagainst whom it would be directed--and so also with the compensation.\nIt is generally held that homicide of this kind was extremely rare and\nthat, when it did occur, the slayer was outlawed. That would no doubt\nbe in accordance with primitive custom. Indeed in a state of society\nbased on blood-relationship the life of a kinsman must be sacred above\nall else. Further, it is clear enough that the shedding of kindred\nblood was regarded with abhorrence in the Heroic Age. Thus Procopius\n(_Goth._ II 14), describing the euthanasia practised by the Heruli,\nstates that when the dying man has been laid upon the top of the pyre,\none of his countrymen goes up with a dagger and stabs him; but he adds\nexplicitly that this man must not be related to his victim[514]. Again,\nto take another point of view, perhaps the saddest passage in Beowulf\nis that which relates how Herebald was accidentally killed by his\nbrother Haethcyn. But the aspect of the case which first strikes the\npoet is not one which would appeal to a man of modern times. \"That was\na slaughter without compensation,\" he says (v. 2441 ff.), \"the prince\nhad to lose his life unavenged.\"\n\nYet, in spite of all this, instances of the slaying of kinsmen seem\nto have been by no means uncommon in the Heroic Age. In Beowulf the\nspokesman of the Danish kings, Unferth, is said to have killed his\nbrothers, and though the fact was a reproach to him, it apparently did\nnot prevent him from holding an important office at court. In the same\npoem we hear of dissensions within the Swedish royal family, which\nended in death for both Onela and Eanmund. According to the legends\npreserved in Ynglingatal this family had had a very bad record for such\nquarrels in the past. Among the Goths we have the case of Eormenric,\nwho put his nephews Embrica and Fritla to death. And it is by no means\nonly in poetry or tradition that we meet with such cases; historians\nalso furnish numerous examples. Thus according to Gregory of Tours (II\n28) the Burgundian king Hilperic was killed by his brother Gundobad,\nwhile Sigismund, son of the latter, had his own son, Sigiric, put\nto death (III 5). The Thuringian king Irminfrith slew his brother\nBerhthari (III 4); the Frankish king Sigiberht was murdered by the\norders of his son Hlothric (II 40). Clovis is said to have put to death\na number of his relatives, while his sons and grandsons were repeatedly\ninvolved in deadly strife[515].\n\nIn view of such evidence we must conclude that the primitive sanctity\nof the family was giving way in the Heroic Age. For the change of\nfeeling which was taking place one passage in Beowulf is particularly\ninstructive. In the struggle between Onela and Eanmund the latter was\nslain by one of the king's knights named Weohstan. He stripped the dead\nman of his arms and brought them to Onela who presented them to him and\n\"said nothing about that deed of guilt although it was his brother's\nson whom he (Weohstan) had laid low[516].\" To the modern reader the\npoet's reflection seems strange; for Onela had been relieved of a\ndangerous foe, who was trying to deprive him of the kingdom. Yet there\ncan be no doubt that according to primitive tribal custom he ought to\nhave taken vengeance upon his knight.\n\nIt is clear then that primitive custom was breaking down even in\ncountries far removed from contact with Christianity and Roman\ncivilisation. We cannot tell indeed how far the change was general,\nsince our knowledge is practically limited to the princely families.\nIt is by no means unlikely that the lower strata of society were more\nconservative in many respects.\n\nThe principle which had now become dominant, at least in the higher\nranks, was that of personal allegiance. This principle was of course\nby no means new. Even in Tacitus' works we hear of the _comites_ who\nlived and fought in their lord's service and thought it a disgrace to\nsurvive his death. In the Heroic Age however it is probable that among\nthe more northern peoples every man, except the king himself, had a\nlord. In the Anglo-Saxon laws the lord shares with the kindred the\nduty of protecting his men, and when one of them is slain he receives\na special payment (the _manbot_) when the wergeld was paid to the\nrelatives. Also, when any of his men die, at all events a man of the\nhigher classes, he is entitled to the heriot, i.e. the arms of the dead\nman, which in theory at least the latter had originally received from\nhim[517].\n\nBut in the poems, as is natural, we hear most frequently of the knights\nwho formed the courts and retinues of kings and princes. As a summary\nof the services rendered by such persons to their lord, Tacitus' brief\ndescription (_Germ._ 13) still holds good: their presence gave him\ndignity in time of peace and protection in war. They dwelt and served\nhim at his court and joined him in hunting and other amusements,\nwhile he rewarded their services with gifts of treasure and arms. In\nthe descriptions of kings which we meet with in the poems there is\nno characteristic--not even personal bravery--which receives more\ncommendation than that of generosity to their followers. In return\nthe knight was expected to give up to his lord whatever he gained by\nhis own exploits--just as Beowulf renders up to Hygelac and his queen\nthe valuable gifts which he had received from the king of the Danes.\nAs an instance of personal devotion in time of war we may cite the\nsurrender of Chonodomarius' retinue at the battle of Strassburg--an\nincident to which we have already referred (p. 340). So also in the\nvarious accounts of the fall of Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki given by Scandinavian\nauthorities the king's knights are said to have perished to a man. The\nsame spirit survived in England in later times, as we see from the\nstory of Cynewulf's death, when in each of the two encounters only one\nmember of the defeated party was left alive. It was also thoroughly in\nthe spirit of the Heroic Age that Edwin's knight, Lilla, acted when he\nthrew himself between the king and the assassin and received a mortal\nwound in so doing.\n\nIt was customary for the sons of noblemen to enter the king's service\nat an early age. Beowulf went to Hrethel's court when he was only\nseven years old; but this case may have been exceptional, as he was\nthe king's grandson. When they reached manhood[518] the king was\nexpected to provide them with estates or jurisdiction over land, which\nwould enable them to marry and support a household of their own. Thus\nBeowulf, after proving his prowess at the Danish court, is presented\nby Hygelac on his return with seven thousand hides--a considerable\nprovince--together with a residence and a prince's authority. The\ngrant is accompanied by the gift of a sword, signifying that the bond\nof personal allegiance was still preserved. Beowulf in turn presents\nhis young relative Wiglaf with the dwelling-place of their family and\nthe public rights appertaining thereto. The court minstrels Widsith\nand Deor receive grants of land from their lords. In two of these\ncases (those of Wiglaf and Widsith) we are told that the estate had\npreviously been in the possession of the recipient's father; and we may\nprobably assume that such cases were not uncommon. Yet it is plain that\nsuch practices must very largely have destroyed the tribal custom of\nsuccession--at least in the higher ranks of society.\n\nThose who had received grants of land or jurisdiction did not\nthereupon cease to attend the court. In the English courts of the\nseventh century Bede distinguishes between the _comites_, who already\nheld office, and the _ministri_ or _milites_, who seem in general\nto have been young knights without such official positions. The\nAnglo-Saxon version of the Ecclesiastical History translates _comes_\nby _gesi\u00f0_ and _minister_ or _miles_ by _\u00feegn_. In poetry both these\nwords are of frequent occurrence, though they appear to be used more or\nless indiscriminately. It should be observed that the word _\u00feegn_ means\nproperly no more than 'servant[519]' though (like _knight_ in later\ntimes) it came to be specialised, while _gesi\u00f0_ is almost an exact\nequivalent of _comes_[520]. In Beowulf however we meet with the same\nclasses under the collective terms _geogo\u00f0_ and _dugu\u00f0_, i.e. youths\nand men of tried valour respectively. To the latter may be assigned\nsuch persons as Aeschere, Hrothgar's \"confidant and counsellor,\" who\nhad stood by his side on the battlefield; but the former class were\nprobably as a rule in the majority.\n\nAnother characteristic of these retinues, which deserves notice, is the\nfact that they were not always composed of born subjects of the king.\nBede (_H. E._ III 14) says that Oswine, the popular king of Deira,\nattracted young noblemen to his service from all sides; and in the\nHeroic Age such cases appear to have been frequent. Perhaps the most\nstriking case in the poems is that of Weohstan, who took service under\nthe Swedish king Onela and consequently became involved in hostilities\nagainst his own nation. It is probably due to the same custom that we\nfind so many Teutonic chieftains serving under the Romans during the\nHeroic Age. Among them we may mention Arbogastes, Stilicho, Ricimer\nand Odoacer. Most frequently perhaps the men who sought service abroad\nwere those who had either lost their lords or had had to leave their\nhomes through vendetta. Such cases occur frequently in the Anglo-Saxon\npoems; we may refer especially to the Wanderer and the Husband's\nMessage. Further, it appears from the story of Waldhere and Hagena\nthat even hostages were expected to fight for the prince to whom they\nhad been given. In later times we may compare the case of the British\nhostage who was wounded in the fight following Cynewulf's murder. But\nthere are a number of other stories which seem to indicate that it was\nat one time a regular custom for young princes to set out from their\nhomes, on reaching manhood, and to seek the court of some foreign king\nwith a view to marrying his daughter and thereby acquiring a share in\nthe sovereignty. Such incidents are of the commonest occurrence in\nfolk-tales; and we find them also in works, such as Hervarar Saga and\nYnglinga Saga, which claim to be based on genuine tradition. It is in\nthis light too that all northern authorities represent the position of\nSigur\u00f0r at the home of Gu\u00f0r\u00fan.\n\nWhat has been said above applies primarily of course to the more\nnorthern peoples. The Goths were early exposed to Christian and Roman\ninfluence, and the same is true also of the Burgundians, especially\nafter their settlement in Gaul. The Franks were no doubt less affected\nat first; but their customs seem from the beginning to have differed\na good deal from those which we have been considering. They too had\nretinues of warriors (_antrustiones_ or _homines in truste regis_)\nattached to the kings by personal service; but the prevalence of\nlordship in the lower ranks of society is by no means so clear. The\npossession of land also seems to have been governed at first by tribal\nprinciples and later by that of succession in the male line--without\nreference to the will of a superior. These differences are doubtless\nconnected with certain features which distinguished the social\norganisation of the Franks from that of the other Teutonic peoples.\n\nEvery one of the early Teutonic nations possessed a more or less\nelaborate social system, with various class gradations. These\ngradations may be seen most clearly in the sums of money fixed for\nwergelds, for the compensations fixed for various injuries and\ninsults and for fines; in some cases also they show themselves in the\nrelative value attached to oaths. Apart from slaves, who do not come\ninto consideration in these matters, the classes usually met with\nare those of nobles, freemen and freedmen. Sometimes however a class\nis subdivided; sometimes again one class is wanting altogether. Thus\nin the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, except Kent, there were two grades of\nnobility, apparently landowning and landless, while freedmen did not\nform a distinct class. Among the Franks on the other hand we find no\nnoble class. In general the freeman's wergeld is about double that of\nthe freedman, while that of the noble is twice or thrice as great as\nthe former; and the other payments usually follow more or less the same\nproportion. The actual sums fixed in the various laws differ greatly in\neach case, owing to the employment of different systems of currency.\nBut it may be regarded as extremely probable that the normal wergeld\nof the freeman was originally a hundred head of cattle. Some nations,\nfurther, had special wergelds for certain high officials. Among the\nFranks persons _in truste regis_ had threefold wergelds, and the same\napplied to the ordinary freeman when engaged in military service.\nIn England the existence of special official wergelds is uncertain,\nat least before the great Danish invasion, though such persons were\nentitled to higher compensations in other respects. But in this country\nmembers of the royal families had wergelds six times as great as those\nof the higher class of nobles.\n\nAll the above classes (excluding officials of course) seem to have\nbeen as a rule hereditary. In some nations indeed the descendants\nof freedmen did become freemen. But it is scarcely probable that\nthis class everywhere consisted only of manumitted slaves or their\noffspring. Sometimes we find the terms _litus_, _latus_, _lazzus_\n(_laet_ in the Kentish laws) in place of _libertus_; and there is good\nreason for believing that this class was largely derived from subject\npopulations. Its numbers seem to have been very large. As to the\nnumbers of the nobility there was apparently great difference between\none nation and another. Among the Bavarians it consisted only of six\nfamilies, including that of the duke, whereas in England it appears to\nhave formed a considerable element in the population. The term applied\nto it here was _gesi\u00f0cund_, i.e. of _gesi\u00f0_ origin (cf. p. 350), which\nindicates clearly a hereditary official or rather military class.\nIndeed the evidence seems to show that the population consisted of\ntwo clearly defined classes, which we may describe as military and\nagricultural, and that all serious fighting was left to the former.\nThis is another feature in which Anglo-Saxon custom differed from\nthat of the Franks, whose armies in the sixth century appear to have\nbeen of a more truly national or even tribal character. With regard\nto the other nations we have less information; but it is probable\nthat the military organisation of the Danes and other Baltic peoples\napproximated more nearly to the English type.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn Homeric society we find the same forces operative as in that of the\nTeutonic Heroic Age. The duty of protecting or avenging one's relatives\nis frequently mentioned. Thus in Od. XVI 97 f. the disguised Odysseus\nsays to Telemachos: \"Hast thou fault to find with thy brethren, for\nit is in them that a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel\ntakes place?\" Telemachos replies (v. 115 ff.): \"Nor have I fault to\nfind with my brethren, in whom a man trusts to do battle, even if a\ngreat quarrel takes place. For our family has been reduced to one man\nby the son of Cronos, as I will tell thee. Arceisios begat one only son\nLaertes, and Odysseus again was the only son begotten by his father;\nbut Odysseus begat me only and left me in his palace without profit to\nhimself. Hence there are now innumerable enemies in our house.\"\n\nThe duty of vengeance is clearly recognised by Nestor in Od. III 196\nff.: \"How good a thing it is for even a dead man's child to survive!\nFor he (Orestes) also took vengeance on his father's slayer, the crafty\nAigisthos, who killed his famous father.\" It was in order to escape\nsuch a fate that Theoclymenos besought Telemachos to take him on his\nship (_ib._ XV 272 ff.): \"I also have left my country, having killed\na man of my own tribe (or 'people'). And in Argos, the pastureland of\nhorses, he had many brethren and kinsmen who hold great authority among\nthe Achaeans. I have taken to flight and so evaded death and black fate\nat their hands; for it is still my lot to wander among men. Now take\nme on thy ship, since I have come to thee as a fugitive and suppliant,\nlest they kill me outright; for I am sure they are in pursuit.\" We\nare reminded here of the story of Ecgtheo, the father of Beowulf, who\nfled for protection to the Danish king Hrothgar owing to a similar\ncause (Beow. 459 ff.). Another case of such exile occurs in Il. XIII\n695 ff. (XV 334 ff.): \"He (Medon) dwelt in Phylace, away from his own\nfatherland; for he had slain a man, the kinsman of his stepmother\nEriopis, whom Oileus had to wife.\" We may compare also Il. XV 430 ff.\nwhere Hector slays \"Lycophron, the son of Mastor, the Cytherian squire\nof Aias, who dwelt with him; for he had slain a man in divine Cythera.\"\n\nAmong the Homeric Greeks, as in northern Europe, compensation for\nmanslaughter could be made to the dead man's relatives. Thus in Il. IX\n632 ff. Aias says to Achilles: \"And yet one accepts compensation from\na man who has slain one's brother or for the death of a son. Hence it\ncomes to pass that the one, when he has paid a large compensation,\nremains in his own land, while the other, after he has accepted the\ncompensation, restrains his feelings and his proud spirit.\" Again, in\nthe description of Achilles' shield we find a scene (_ib._ XVIII 497\nff.) representing a dispute over the payment of a wergeld. \"The folk\nwere gathered in the assembly place; for there a strife was arisen,\ntwo men striving about the blood-price of a man slain; the one claimed\nto pay full atonement, expounding to the people, but the other denied\nhim and would take naught; and both were fain to receive arbitrament\nat the hand of a daysman[521].\" In this case the transaction takes\nplace before certain elders, one of whom is to receive a payment of two\ntalents, apparently as a reward for bringing about an agreement. There\nis no mention of any payment to the king[522].\n\nFrom the passage relating to Theoclymenos quoted above (v. 273: \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5) we may probably infer that the duty of vengeance\nextended beyond the brothers of the slain man; and evidence to the same\neffect is given by the story of Tlepolemos (Il. II 661 ff.). But it is\nnot at all clear how many degrees of relationship were either involved\nin this duty or entitled to compensation. Indeed the poems give us very\nlittle information regarding the character of the kindred. Patronymic\nforms such as \u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2[523] are very common and correspond in use\nto Anglo-Saxon forms such as _Hre\u00f0ling_, _Wonreding_. But they are\nalmost always used of individuals or of a pair of brothers (\u1f08\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1,\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9). Collective names for families, such as \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9, seem not to occur in the Homeric poems[524]. Indeed the\npatronymic is nearly always derived from the name of the father. Cases\nwhere they are taken from the grandfather's name, e.g. \u0391\u1f30\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 for\nAchilles, appear to be quite exceptional. This is a feature in which\nHomeric usage differs not only from Teutonic but also, still more,\nfrom that of later times in Greece, where we frequently find families\nor kindreds bearing patronymic names derived from a remote ancestor.\nAs examples we may mention the Aigeidai at Sparta and the Philaidai at\nAthens.\n\nBut the difference between Homeric and later usage in this respect does\nnot seem to be one of nomenclature only. At Athens we find later an\nelaborate system of 'tribes' (\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03af), phratries or 'clans' (\u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9)\nand 'kindreds' (\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7), of which the last at all events were supposed\nto rest on a basis of blood-relationship, involving common religious\nrites. Divisions of a more or less similar type seem to have existed in\nthe other Greek states. In the Homeric poems however we find extremely\nlittle evidence for anything of this kind. The clearest case is in Il.\nII 362 f., where Nestor instructs Agamemnon as follows: \"Divide thy men\naccording to tribes and clans, Agamemnon, that clan may render succour\nto clan and tribe to tribe[525].\" In the battle scenes we hear little\nof any such organisation, though this may be due to the fact that\nattention is entirely concentrated upon the leaders. But it is worth\nnoting that the word \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7 occurs only in this passage[526]. Again,\n\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae does not occur at all, except possibly in the form \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\n(Il. II 668), while \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd is a word of very vague significance, ranging\nfrom \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd etc. to the \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, i.e. the descendants of\na man whose son is still alive[527]. The same is true also of \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\nLastly, there is no evidence for any religious rites peculiar to\ncertain families or clans.\n\nIt would be rash of course to conclude from this that the clan and\nfamily system of later times was unknown in the age of the poems; for\nin itself it bears every mark of antiquity. But there must be some\nreason for the neglect with which it is treated in the poems. If we\nexamine individual cases we find that scarcely any heroes claim an\nancestry of more than three generations. The Achaean families with the\nlongest history are those of Agamemnon and Odysseus; but, if we are\nto believe post-Homeric tradition, the former changed its territories\nafter the time of Pelops.\n\nThis brings us to the question of succession. In Ithaca the throne\nseems to pass in the regular paternal line; and, though there is really\nno king after the retirement of Laertes, it is generally expected that\nthe young Telemachos will eventually take his place (Od. I 386 f., II\n14). Similarly Nestor has succeeded his father Neleus, while Idomeneus\napparently occupies the throne formerly held by his father's father,\nMinos. On the other hand, according to the story told by Glaucos (Il.\nVI 192 f.), Bellerophon, a stranger, received half the kingly rights in\nLycia with the hand of the king's daughter. Moreover all post-Homeric\nauthorities agree that Menelaos received the throne of Sparta by\nmarriage, from his father-in-law Tyndareos. Similar stories are told\nof Tydeus, Telamon, Peleus, Teucros and many others[528]. It is to\nbe observed that, though these stories do not occur in the Iliad and\nOdyssey, they do not conflict with any evidence to be found there. Many\nof them can be traced back to the seventh century, indeed probably to\nthe eighth.\n\nIf we are to trust post-Homeric authorities it would seem that the\nwife remained in her parents' home quite as often as she went to that\nof her husband. This state of things however points to the prevalence\nof a cognatic organisation of society. In the case of Bellerophon\nindeed there can scarcely be any doubt; for the Lycians reckoned\ndescent through the mother down to the time of Herodotus. The historian\nhimself (I 173) remarks on the custom as strange and without parallel\nelsewhere--from which we may probably infer that it had disappeared\naltogether from Greece before his time. Yet in one Greek community we\nhave evidence almost as explicit. According to Polybius, XII 5, the\nEpizephyrian Locrians stated that with them all ancestral honours were\nderived from women and not from men, and that even then (i.e. in the\nsecond century) their nobility traced their descent from certain women\nof 'the hundred families' who had taken part in the foundation of the\ncolony. 'The hundred families' were those which before this time had\nbeen selected by the Locrians (i.e. the Hypocnemidian Locrians) as the\nfamilies from which they were to choose the virgins who were to be sent\nto Ilion. This story seems to imply that cognatic organisation survived\nin Locris down to the beginning of the seventh century[529]. In other\nstates[530], so far as I am aware, we find only traces of the former\nexistence of such an institution. Some of these however suggest that\nthe change may not have been of any very great antiquity[531].\n\nThe Homeric poems themselves contain some further evidence, which\npoints in the same direction. We may note that a number of heroes are\nsaid to be sons of gods. But it can hardly be without significance that\nthe Lycian prince Sarpedon (daughter's son of Bellerophon) is the only\nson of Zeus, who belongs to the story of the Trojan war, whereas in the\nearlier generations examples are comparatively common. In post-Homeric\ngenealogies the succession of son to father seems to become less\nfrequent the farther one goes back.\n\nIn regard to marriage customs the poems show a remarkable absence of\nuniformity. The story of Bellerophon is by no means the only case\nin which the wife remains at home, even if we leave out of account\nsuch marriages as those of Menelaos and Tydeus, upon which the poems\nthemselves are silent. Alcinoos proposes a union of this kind to\nOdysseus (Od. VII 311 ff.)[532], and the wife of Iphidamas the son of\nAntenor appears to remain with her father (Il. XI 225 f.). On the whole\nhowever the other type seems to be decidedly more common. Then we have\nto take into account the use of the word \u1f14\u03b5\u03b4\u03bd\u03b1. It is commonly held\nthat this originally denoted the 'bride-price' paid by the bridegroom\nto the relatives of the bride; and there is no doubt that the word\nis so used in several passages. In others however it may at least\nequally well denote presents made to the bride herself; occasionally\nindeed it appears to mean presents (i.e. a dowry) given by the bride's\nparents. By far the most prominent case of course is that of Penelope;\nand here the question is complicated apparently by a doubt as to the\nproper person entitled to bestow the bride--who is presumed to be a\nwidow. Sometimes the decision seems to rest with her son, Telemachos,\nsometimes with her father--never with Laertes; but in the end she takes\nthe matter into her own hands, after exacting presents for herself from\nall the suitors. It has been well suggested[533] that the ambiguity in\nthe situation is due to a real change of custom. But I am by no means\nconvinced that the ancient custom, now being superseded, was one of\nreal purchase. It is made fairly clear (Od. I 396 ff., XV 518 ff., XXII\n49 ff., etc.) that at least some of the suitors have ulterior objects\nin view. That the throne should be conveyed through Penelope seems to\nus no doubt illogical; for Odysseus himself had not acquired it by his\nmarriage. But, if we are right in believing that the type of marriage\nrepresented in the story of Bellerophon is earlier than the other, the\nsituation depicted in the Odyssey is one for which ancient custom could\nnot have made provision; indeed in such a situation traditional feeling\nmight very well incline towards regarding the queen, even though a\nstranger, as the proper channel for conveying the succession. Add to\nthis the practical consideration that Penelope is apparently the person\nactually in command of the treasury; and we have no reason, so far as I\nam aware, for doubting that treasury and kingdom were as closely bound\nup together in Heroic Greece as they were in the Heroic Age of the\nnorthern peoples[534]. It has often been remarked that the position of\nwomen in the Homeric poems appears to be one of greater influence and\nresponsibility than anything we find in later times. But nowhere is\nthis responsibility made so clear as in the absence of all evidence for\nthe constitution of a regency when the king is away from home.\n\nIf the view put forward above is correct we must conclude that a change\nhad been taking place in the organisation of society, and indeed\nthat it was as yet by no means complete[535]. We have noticed that\nthe conditions seem to have been somewhat similar in the Heroic Age\nof the Teutonic peoples. But we saw also that there the change was\napparently accompanied by a relaxation in the bonds of kinship, which\nshows itself especially in fatal strife between relatives. The same\nphenomenon appears in the Homeric poems. Thus according to Il. II 662\nf. Tlepolemos slew his father's mother's brother, Licymnios, and had\nto leave his country in consequence. Among Achilles' followers (_ib._\nXVI 570 ff.) was a certain Epeigeus who had taken refuge with Peleus\nbecause he had killed a cousin or kinsman (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2) in his own city.\nAgain in Il. IX 566 f. it is at least implied that Meleagros slew his\nmother's brothers (in accordance with the story found later). In the\nsame speech (V 458 ff.) Phoinix confesses that he had been on the point\nof killing his own father. Then there is the tragic history of the\nhouse of Pelops. The facts stated in the Odyssey are that Aigisthos\nslew Agamemnon, his father's brother's son, and that Orestes, the son\nof Agamemnon, eventually slew Aigisthos. The most important feature in\nthis story is that here we have not only homicide but also vengeance\nwithin the kindred. It is not actually stated that Orestes slew his\nmother; but from Od. III 310 we may infer at least that she perished at\nthe same time as Aigisthos. This is one of the cases in which I suspect\nthat disagreeable incidents connected with royal families have been\nsuppressed (cf. p. 238). Later authorities add many more instances of\nhomicide within the kindred. Some of these, such as the 'banquet of\nThyestes,' bear a close resemblance to Teutonic stories which we know\nto be unhistorical. Others again may have been invented to account\nfor the presence of heroes in districts far from their native place.\nYet from the fact that this motive is so frequently employed we may\nconclude that the murder of relatives was nothing very rare.\n\nIn this respect then the Greek evidence agrees entirely with the\nTeutonic. In both cases alike the bonds of kinship seem to have lost\ntheir force to a great extent[536]. But it is to be remembered that\namong the Teutonic peoples we have in general no evidence except for\nthe families of kings and royal officials; in other ranks of society\nthe kindred may have retained much more vitality--as indeed the\nlaws seem to imply. Such may also have been the case in Greece; for\nthe Homeric poems are concerned almost exclusively with persons of\nprincely rank. Certainly the strength and sanctity possessed by the\nkindred in early historical times is most easily to be explained on the\nsupposition that the tendency which we have been discussing affected\nonly a limited element in society[537].\n\nThe second of the two principles which we find dominant in early\nTeutonic society, namely that of personal allegiance, seems at first\nsight to play by no means so important a part in the life of heroic\nGreece. But for the lack of prominence assigned to it there are special\nreasons--a different reason in the case of each poem. In the Iliad,\nwhich deals with campaign life, the stage is so crowded with kings that\nthere is little room left for persons of humbler station. The only\nforce indeed of which we have any account at all is that of Achilles.\nThis was divided into five troops, each under a leader of its own, in\naddition to Patroclos and Automedon. We saw in the last chapter that\nthe speech in which Patroclos exhorts his men to battle is entirely in\nthe spirit of the Teutonic _comitatus_. The appeal which he makes to\nthem is not to any feeling of patriotism, but entirely to the effect\nthat they should show their devotion to their own lord. We may note\nthat several of the chief men, at all events Patroclos, Automedon and\nPhoinix, seem to share Achilles' hut. The passionate friendship of\nAchilles and Patroclos appears to be a stronger bond than any other\nrelationship that we meet with in the Homeric poems. But even if we\nset this on one side as something exceptional, the devotion shown to\nAchilles by Phoinix is quite in accordance with the best traditions of\nTeutonic thegnship.\n\nThe Odyssey presents us with the picture of a king's house in time of\npeace. But, though Penelope has not less than fifty women in the house,\nthe only men apparently, besides the suitors and their followers, are\nTelemachos himself, the herald Medon and the minstrel Phemios, together\nwith the swineherd, neatherd and goatherd who come with provisions\neach day from a distance. But the conditions here are abnormal; the\nking himself has been away from home for many years, and his son is\nonly just reaching manhood. It is scarcely credible that a Teutonic\n_comitatus_ could have existed under such conditions. Menelaos appears\nto have something of a retinue at his court. In IV 22 f. we hear of a\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd named Eteoneus, who seems to be a person of some rank, as he is\ncalled \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. In v. 216 f. another \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, Asphalion, is mentioned,\nwhile v. 37 f. speak of several of such persons, though their number\nis not stated. All that is said of them seems to indicate that their\nposition was much the same as that of the thegns in early Teutonic\ncourts. The picture of the Phaeacian court also bears a general\nresemblance to that of the Danish court as described in Beowulf.\n\nThe use of the word \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd appears to correspond almost exactly to\nthat of _\u00feegn_[538]. In both cases the general meaning is 'servant';\nbut, just as we find Beowulf described as _Hygelaces \u00feegn_, so in the\nIliad the term \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd is applied to such distinguished persons as\nMeriones and Patroclos. The converse term \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be also seems to correspond\nalmost as closely to the English _dryhten_. Like the latter it is used\nfor the master of a slave (e.g. Od. XV 557), while on the other hand\nit is applied, again like _dryhten_, to the most important kings--and\neven deities--in relation to all who recognise their authority. We\nhave already noticed (p. 329) that the phrase \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd seems to\ncorrespond very closely to the English phrase _eorla dryhten_.\n\nThere is little or no evidence to show whether it was customary for the\nsons of leading men to be brought up at the king's court. Patroclos was\ndeclared to be the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd of Achilles at an early age (Il. XXIII 89\nf.); but the circumstances were exceptional. Certainly the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\noften came from beyond the king's dominions. Thus Patroclos had come\nfrom Opus (_ib._ XXIII 85 ff.) and Lycophron, Aias' squire, from\nCythera (_ib._ XV 430 f.). It is true that both these persons had had\nto leave their homes owing to homicides which they had committed; and\nno doubt many such cases were due to circumstances which rendered a\nchange of abode advisable. Thus Phoinix had sought the protection of\nPeleus owing to a deadly quarrel with his father. Yet apart from such\nemergencies the protection and friendship of a wealthy and powerful\nking probably offered considerable attractions. We may refer to a\nsomewhat remarkable passage in the Odyssey (IV 174 ff.), where Menelaos\nsays that it had been his wish to bring Odysseus to his own country,\nwith his son and his followers and possessions, adding that in order to\nmake a home for him he would have ejected the inhabitants from one of\nthe neighbouring cities which were under his lordship.\n\nMenelaos' intention seems to have been to put Odysseus in the position\nof a dependent prince. We have seen that Teutonic kings were in the\nhabit of rewarding their knights with grants of jurisdiction; and the\nsame appears to have been the case with the kings of Homeric times.\nThus in Il. IX 483 f. Phoinix says that Peleus had made him rich and\ngranted him many followers, and that he had made his dwelling in a\nfrontier district as lord over the Dolopes. This passage seems to\nfurnish almost an exact parallel to the treatment of Beowulf by Hygelac\n(cf. p. 349). A similar case perhaps was that of Medon, the son of\nOileus, who according to Il. II 727 commanded the forces from Methone\nand the adjacent districts, in the absence of Philoctetes, and who,\nlike Phoinix, was a fugitive from his native land (cf. XIII 695 ff.).\nHere too we may mention the case of Phyleus, who had left his own\ncountry and gone to Dulichion owing to a quarrel with his father (_ib._\nII 629), and whose son Meges commanded the forces from that island.\nIn many such cases of course there may have been a marriage with a\nprincess of the native royal family; but it is hardly necessary to\nassume that this was universal. In the case of Phoinix indeed such an\nassumption is improbable.\n\nThere seems to be no actual record of a Homeric hero who left his\nhome except under stress of circumstances; and hence, after making\nall deductions, we are bound, I think, to conclude that the system\nof the _comitatus_ was not so highly developed as in the north of\nEurope. This is in full conformity with the fact that kingly families\nwere apparently much more numerous. Among the suitors of Penelope\ntwelve princes belong to Ithaca alone, an island of no great size and\nprobably never thickly populated[539].\n\nFor a class of nobility distinct from the princely families we have no\nclear evidence[540]. Persons like Eteoneus, the squire of Menelaos, may\nbelong to such a class; but it is quite possible that they are princes.\nWe may refer also to the false story told by Odysseus in Od. XIII 256\nff., from which it appears that chiefs with small followings might be\nexpected to place themselves in the position of \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 to more\npowerful chiefs. But Odysseus does not here make clear what rank he\nclaims to have possessed in Crete. Quite possibly the practice referred\nto might be somewhat analogous to what we find in the Saga of Harold\nthe Fair-haired, where a number of petty kings submit to Harold and\ntake the rank of earls.\n\nThe same want of definiteness occurs in regard to the humbler ranks of\nsociety. Even the slave's status is not made particularly clear, while\nthere is no reference to the existence of freedmen or to the practice\nof manumission[541]. Slaves are apparently able to buy other slaves\non their own account (cf. Od. XIV 449 ff.). In other respects however\ntheir position seems to be very similar to that of slaves in early\nTeutonic society[542]. Still less do we hear of differences of rank\nor status within the free population[543]. But it should be observed\nthat the Anglo-Saxon poems give us no more information on such matters.\nWere it not for the early laws and foreign authorities we should know\nnothing of the distinction between land-holding and landless peasants,\nnor even of the great classes of noble, freeman, slave, etc. The true\nexplanation seems to be that both sets of poems alike are interested\nonly in persons of royal rank.\n\nNo light is thrown on the social system by the passages which mention\nthe payment of wergelds; for we are not informed whether these were\nfixed by custom or whether they formed the subject of bargaining in\neach individual case. In Il. XXI 79 f. Lycaon says that Achilles had\nsold him into Lemnos for a hundred oxen and that he had been ransomed\nfrom thence for three hundred. Even the smaller of these sums is of\ncourse much too great for an ordinary slave's price. In the light of\nTeutonic custom it is possible that both represent standard wergelds,\nregarded as man-values in general; but one can hardly say that it is\nmore than a possibility. The silence of the poems upon this subject is\nnothing surprising, for the Teutonic poems yield us no more information.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may now briefly summarise the results of this discussion. The\nsalient characteristic of the Heroic Age, both in Greece and in\nnorthern Europe, appears to be the disintegration of the bonds of\nkinship, a process which shows itself chiefly in the prevalence of\nstrife between relatives, and which in both cases is probably connected\nwith a change in the organisation of the kindred--agnatic relationship\nhaving come gradually to take the place of cognatic. How far this\nprocess affected society as a whole we cannot tell, since our evidence\nis generally limited to the royal families. The binding force formerly\npossessed by kinship was now largely transferred to the relationship\nbetween 'lord' and 'man' (_dryhten_--_\u00feegn_, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be--\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd), between\nwhom no bond of blood-relationship was necessary. The _comitatus_\nwas probably not developed in Greece to the same extent as it was in\nnorthern Europe; indeed in regard to social development generally\nthe conditions in Greece seem to have been more primitive. Yet in\nindividual cases the bond between lord and man was apparently the\nstrongest force of which we know.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[513] Cf. _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 327 ff.\n\n[514] \u03be\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2. Cf. Greg. Tur., II\n40, where Clovis says: _nec enim possum sanguinem parentum meorum\neffundere, quod fieri nefas est_. But this is represented as mere\nhypocrisy; cf. II 41, _ad fin._\n\n[515] In some cases the deed was certainly done by the relative's own\nhand. Such was the case with Lothair and the sons of Chlodomer (Greg.\nTur., III 18).\n\n[516] Beow. 2618 f.:\n\n _no ymb \u00f0a faeh\u00f0e spraec,\n \u00feeah \u00f0e he his bro\u00f0or bearn abredwade._\n\nMany scholars here understand _\u00f0a faeh\u00f0e_ to mean not the encounter\nbetween Eanmund and Weohstan, but the hostility (vendetta) which\ndevolved upon Onela as Eanmund's kinsman; but I think the idea is\nrather that of 'bloodguiltiness' (towards Onela) incurred by Weohstan.\nEanmund was the son of Ohthere, Onela's brother.\n\n[517] It may be observed that in Beow. 452 ff. the hero requests the\nDanish king to send his mail-coat to Hygelac, if he should be killed\nby Grendel. This mail-coat (described as Weland's handiwork) is said\nto have belonged formerly to Hrethel, Hygelac's father (Beowulf's\ngrandfather).\n\n[518] In the seventh century it appears to have been customary to make\nthese grants when the recipient was about twenty-four or twenty-five\nyears old; cf. Bede, _Hist. Abb._, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 8; _Ep. ad Ecgb._, \u00a7 11.\n\n[519] We may compare the use of the word _sluga_ in Servian heroic\npoetry (cf. p. 316); its ordinary meaning is 'servant.'\n\n[520] The same word is used in a similar sense in the Langobardic laws;\n_gasindus_ (or _gasindius_), 'Gefolgsmann,' and so also _gasindium_,\n'Gefolgschaft'; cf. Br\u00fcckner, _Quellen und Forschungen_, LXXV p. 205.\n\n[521] Quoted from the translation by Lang, Leaf and Myers.\n\n[522] The interpretation of Hesiod, _W. and D._ 38 f., need not be\ndiscussed here.\n\n[523] The other types (e.g. \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) are less frequent.\n\n[524] \u039a\u03b1\u03b4\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u039a\u03b1\u03b4\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 are at best very dubious examples, for\nCadmos is probably to be regarded as an eponymous national hero, like\nDardanos.\n\n[525]\n\n \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bd' \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u1fc3, \u03c6\u1fe6\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nCf. Tacitus, _Germ._ 7: _quodque praecipuum fortitudinis incitamentum\nest, non casus nec fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum facit sed\nfamiliae et propinquitates_. But the context shows that the conditions\nhere are of a totally different character from those in the Iliad.\n\n[526] But cf. Il. IX 63, where the word \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 occurs, apparently with\nreference to the same institution.\n\n[527] The meaning of the word \u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd in Od. XV 273 seems to be quite\nambiguous.\n\n[528] Cf. Frazer, _Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_,\np. 238 ff. The story of Peleus and Eurytion bears rather a close\nresemblance to that of Bellerophon.\n\n[529] It is to be borne in mind that the Epizephyrian Locrians were one\nof the first, if not the very first, of all Greek communities to obtain\na codification of their laws--probably indeed within half a century of\nthe establishment of the colony. This fact may perhaps account for the\nsurvival of primitive institutions among them.\n\n[530] Except perhaps in Cos; but the evidence here is ambiguous.\n\n[531] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 190 ff.\n\n[532] The nature of Agamemnon's proposal to Achilles in Il. IX 144 ff.\n(286 ff.) is not quite clear. Achilles is to choose one of Agamemnon's\ndaughters and take her to Peleus' home. But with her Agamemnon is to\ngive seven cities, situated apparently in Messenia, which in future\nare to be subject to Achilles. Possibly v. 149 is to be understood as\nintroducing a new (alternative) proposal.\n\n[533] Cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen d. Homerkritik_\u00b2, p. 292 ff.\n\n[534] We may compare Beow. 2369 ff., where--in a situation somewhat\nanalogous to that of the Odyssey--Hygelac's widowed queen offers both\ntreasury and kingdom to the chief surviving prince, distrusting the\nability of her young son to hold his own.\n\n[535] That the type of organisation which prevailed during the growth\nof Homeric poetry was agnatic may be inferred from the regular use of\nthe word \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7 and the (probably older) expression \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, which\nperhaps originally denoted 'land of one's father' (the _faeder e\u00f0el_\nof Widsith, v. 96). But according to Plato (_Republic_, 575 D) the\nCretans used \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 for \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2. Evidence for the prevalence of cognatic\norganisation in early times is furnished by certain words denoting\nrelationship, especially \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2 (originally 'uterine brother'), and a\nrelic of the feeling that this form of relationship was closer seems to\nbe preserved in Il. XXI 95. We may also take into account the formation\nof patronymics in -\u03b9\u03b4\u1fb1, which appear to be extended from the feminine\nsuffix -\u03b9\u03b4- by another suffix (-\u1fb1-) also properly feminine. In the\nnorth-western dialects these names were declined as feminines (e.g. N.\nsg. \u0395\u03c7\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1, G. sg. \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2). One can hardly help suspecting that\nthese names belonged originally to genealogies of the Lycian type.\n\n[536] It is possibly due to the same cause that we meet with some\ncurious marriages. Thus Alcinoos is married to his brother's daughter,\nand Iphidamas to his mother's sister. The former case offends against\nthe principle of agnatic organisation, the latter against the cognatic.\nSome other heroes (e.g. Diomedes) seem to be in somewhat similar\npositions.\n\n[537] The Locrian case quoted above (p. 357) suggests that the kindreds\nmay, sometimes at least, have been organised on a cognatic basis.\n\n[538] There is a certain amount of parallelism also between \u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and\n_gesi\u00f0_ (cf. p. 350). But the former has scarcely the same technical\nsignificance as the latter.\n\n[539] Assuming the Homeric Ithaca to be identical with the Ithaca of\nlater times. If 'Same' is the later Ithaca, the number of suitors\nfurnished by this island is twenty-four.\n\n[540] Cf. Fanta, _Der Staat in der Ilias und Odyssee_, p. 26 f., where\na distinction is drawn between higher and lower nobility--the \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2\nbeing only a portion of the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2; but the evidence seems to me\ninconclusive.\n\n[541] Yet the promise made by Odysseus to the herdsmen in Od. XXI 213\nff. may perhaps be analogous to the change of status involved when a\nTeutonic slave was made a freedman.\n\n[542] In both cases the household slaves seem to have been almost\nentirely women, who were occupied for the most part in grinding corn.\n\n[543] From Od. IV 644 and VI 489 f. it seems probable on the whole\nthat there existed a class of landless freemen corresponding to the\nAng.-Sax. _geburas_. But no information apparently is given with regard\nto the \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2--whether it corresponded at all to the hide of the\n_gafolgelda_ (roughly comparable with the Athenian \u03b6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2) or whether\nit represented normally a much larger estate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nGOVERNMENT IN THE HEROIC AGE.\n\n\nDuring the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples kingship appears to have\nbeen practically universal. The Old Saxons may have formed a solitary\nexception to the general rule; but our knowledge of this people really\nbegins only towards the close of the seventh century.\n\nMuch has been written about the various powers possessed by the kings,\nbut it is still by no means clear what they could not do, so long as\nthey had a powerful and contented body of personal followers. If they\nforfeited the allegiance of their retinues by violence or outrage their\npower of course was gone at once. In the course of the eighth century\nseveral English kings were killed or expelled by their retinues; and\nin Beowulf (v. 902 ff.; cf. v. 1709 ff.) we hear that a former king\nof the Danes named Heremod had met with a similar fate. But in early\ntimes such cases do not seem to have been common. Again, the numbers\nof the retinue might decrease through want of generosity or excessive\nlove of peace on the king's part, and he would then be exposed to\nthe attack of any aggressive neighbour or of some member of his own\nfamily whom he had offended. The only definite statement however\nwhich we possess regarding a limitation of the king's authority is a\npassage in Ammianus Marcellinus' history (XXVIII 5. 14) referring to\nthe Burgundians--before their conversion--according to which kings\nwere regularly deposed as a consequence of unsuccessful war or famine.\nThe context, though not plainly expressed, seems to suggest that this\ndeposition was carried out by the decision or through the agency of a\nhigh-priest whose authority was permanent.\n\nThe statement that the kings of the Burgundians were deposed on account\nof famine points to the survival of a primitive idea of kingship,\nwhich credited the ruler with superhuman powers. The kings of the\nSwedes also, according to Ynglinga Saga, cap. 47, were believed to\nhave control over the seasons[544], like the god Frey from whom they\nclaimed descent; and it is said that two of them were sacrificed in\ntimes of famine. In the same saga, cap. 20, it is stated that the\nmembers of this dynasty individually were called Yngvi, a name of the\nancestral god[545]--which seems to indicate that they were regarded\nas his representatives. How far such ideas were general during the\nHeroic Age it is impossible to say, owing to the fact that we have\nfew records dating in their present form from heathen times. Note\nmay be taken however of the peculiar position occupied by the later\nMerovingian kings[546]. During the last century of their existence as\na dynasty their power was entirely taken from them and transferred\nto a viceroy (commonly known as _maior domus_)--whose office became\npractically hereditary in one family. The only duties which were\nretained by the kings were certain ceremonial functions, which point to\na more or less sacral character, so far as was possible in a Christian\ncommunity. We may note further that in the North there is no evidence\nfor a specifically priestly class; temporal and spiritual power were\napparently united in the same person. Among the Angli on the other hand\nthere was such a class, though, in contrast with the Burgundians, the\nhigh-priest seems to have been subordinate to the king[547].\n\nIn Sweden there was a form of election for kings, which may have had\na religious significance. The electors (the lawman and twelve others\nfrom each province) stood on huge stones (Morastenar), fixed in the\nearth, which may still be seen at Hammarby near Upsala. Saxo (p. 10\nf.) records the former existence of a similar custom in Denmark. On\nthe other hand the Frankish custom of hoisting a new king on a shield\nprobably meant no more than a proclamation of lordship, as may be\nseen from the first recorded instance[548]. Whatever the formalities\nemployed, it appears that in practice the reigning king was usually\nable to secure the succession for his son; but failing such the nearest\nmale relative acceptable to the court would normally be chosen[549]. It\nwas not an unknown thing even for minors to succeed[550]. Frequently we\nfind the kingdom shared by two or more brothers, just like any other\nproperty; and on the death of one of them his son was sometimes allowed\nto take his place, as in the well-known case of Hrothgar and Hrothwulf.\nOn the other hand the survivor might, and apparently often did, refuse\nany such concession; and consequently struggles between relatives for\nthe possession of the throne were of not infrequent occurrence.\n\nNational or tribal assemblies figure prominently in Tacitus' account\nof the ancient Germans, and among several of the Continental Teutonic\npeoples they survived down to the seventh or eighth century. At this\ntime they were generally held in the early spring--whence the name\n_Campus Martius_ applied to the assembly of the Franks. After the\nadoption of Christianity however they had come to be little more than\nmilitary reviews for the most part, though at the same time a meeting\nof dignitaries, lay and ecclesiastical, was held for the transaction\nof business. In much later times we meet with national assemblies in\nthe North also, especially in Sweden, and there can be little doubt\nthat these had long been in existence. They were used by the kings for\nthe purpose of publishing proclamations, and at the same time they\npresented an opportunity for coercing or overthrowing a king who had\naroused popular resentment in any way. But they appear to have been\nprimarily religious gatherings, for the great annual sacrifices at the\nchief national sanctuary. It is more than probable however that such\nwas the case also with the assemblies of the ancient Germans[551].\nAt all events there is nothing to show that, apart from special\nemergencies, they met more than once, or possibly twice, in the year.\nIn England evidence seems to be altogether wanting for any assemblies\nwhich could properly be called national; nor do we find any reference\nto such an institution in the poems.\n\nIt is true that we hear not unfrequently of discussions and\ndeliberations in works dating from the Heroic Age. But although precise\ninformation as to the size and constitution of these meetings is seldom\ngiven, they appear to be those of comparatively small bodies, similar\nto the royal councils of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The latter however\nwere nothing more than meetings of the court from the earliest times\nto which our records go back. When important questions were discussed\ncare may have been taken to summon all the leading men; and no doubt\nage and high rank ensured priority of hearing, as in the assemblies\nof Tacitus' day. But still they remained essentially meetings of the\nking's personal dependents. So far as I am aware, there is no reason\nfor supposing that gatherings like that described by Procopius (_Vand._\nI 22), when Genseric received the embassy from his compatriots in\nEurope, differed in any way from the meeting called by Edwin in 625 to\ndiscuss the adoption of Christianity. Often indeed the persons present\nare described as \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 or \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9. Again, in Beowulf we hear\nmore than once of Danish councillors (_witan Scyldinga_), but there is\nnothing to show that these were a different body from the members of\nthe court who entertained Beowulf; and it is clear from vv. 778 ff.,\n936 ff. that their meetings were held in the same building. The old\nand distinguished councillor who persuaded Genseric to reject the\npetition of the envoys would seem to have been just such another person\nas Aeschere, Hrothgar's trusted adviser (cf. p. 350). In the story of\nHermegisklos and Radiger also (cf. p. 97 f.) it is clear that the same\n'distinguished men of the nation' (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9) act both as\ncompanions of the old king and advisers of his young successor.\n\nIn spite of what has been said above there is some evidence for the\nexistence of councils consisting of a fixed number of men, namely\ntwelve, whose position may have differed somewhat from that of the\nordinary members of the court[552]. The Old Saxons had a council of\ntwelve which met annually at a place called Marklo, on the Weser; but\nthis case stands by itself, as the Old Saxons had no king. In Sweden\nhowever we meet with such councils both in tradition and in historical\ntimes, and what we know of them indicates that they were composed\nof the chief men. Moreover councils of twelve for judicial purposes\noccur both in provinces and small districts in various parts of the\nScandinavian peninsula, as well as in the Scandinavian settlements in\nthe British Isles. The gods too were credited with possessing a council\nof twelve which had both judicial and sacrificial duties[553]--a fact\nwhich is interesting as it points to a connection between the councils\nof which we have been speaking and bodies of twelve with sacrificial\nduties, of which we hear in stories relating to heathen times. If we\ntake into account the legend of the twelve Frisian judges (_asegen_)\nand the fact that councils of twelve are known to have existed among\nthe Celts and other European peoples, we can scarcely doubt that\nthis type is of great antiquity. Yet there is nothing to show that\nsuch councils were at all general during the Heroic Age; in England\nthey seem to be entirely unknown before the period of Scandinavian\ninfluence. It is probable therefore that in this, as in other respects,\nthe Swedes had preserved an institution which other kingdoms had\ndiscarded.\n\nFrom the stories quoted above we see that it was customary for the king\nto consult his council or court when any question involving difficulty\nor danger arose; and there can be little doubt that he would feel his\nposition strengthened by so doing. But we have no reason for supposing\nthat the opinion of the council possessed anything more than moral\nforce; and consequently it would depend upon the king's strength of\ncharacter or the security of his position whether he felt himself bound\nto follow their advice or not. Procopius (_Goth._ I 2) states that\nAmalaswintha was coerced by the leading men of the Goths with regard\nto her son's education; but she was only a regent at this time. Again,\nin another passage (_ib._ IV 27) he relates how Hildigisl, a claimant\nto the Langobardic throne, fled for refuge to Thorisin (Turisindus),\nking of the Gepidae. Audoin, king of the Langobardi, demanded that\nhe should be given up; and his request was supported by Justinian.\nThorisin consulted his distinguished men (\u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), but they replied\nthat it would be better for the whole nation of the Gepidae to perish\nthan to commit such an act of sacrilege. The king now, says Procopius,\nfelt himself to be in a great difficulty. For he could not carry out\nwhat was demanded against the will of his subjects, and at the same\ntime he was afraid to go to war against the Romans and Langobardi. So\nhe contrived to get the fugitive murdered secretly, obtaining a _quid\npro quo_ in the murder of one of his own rivals. It must be observed\nthat Thorisin himself had obtained the throne by violence. So the young\nRadiger, when he was captured and brought before the English princess,\npleaded that he had been forced to renounce his promise to her by\nhis father's commands and the insistence of the leading men (\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03ae\u03bd). Genseric on the other hand dismissed the envoys in\naccordance with the old councillor's advice; but we are told that both\nof them were ridiculed by the rest of the Vandals for so doing. Plainly\nthen there was no question of having to follow the opinion of the\nmajority.\n\nIt might naturally be expected that the authority of the council would\nmake itself felt most on the occasion of the king's death; and the\nstory of Radiger seems to bear this out. Yet it is worth noticing what\nis recorded in Beowulf on an occasion of great emergency. Hygelac,\nking of the Geatas, lost his life in the disastrous expedition against\nthe Frisians and left an only son, Heardred, who seems to have been\nscarcely more than a child. Beowulf escaped from the slaughter, and\non his return (v. 2369 ff.) \"Hygd offered him the treasury and the\ngovernment, the rings and the throne. She trusted not that her child\nwould be able to hold his patrimony against foreign nations, now that\nHygelac was dead.\" There is no reference to any action on the part\nof the council or court; but the queen offers the throne to the late\nking's nephew. The whole passage seems to indicate that the throne\nwith all its rights was regarded very much like any ordinary family\nproperty. Its disposition is arranged by the family itself, without\nany notion of responsibility to others; and the members of the court\nare not taken into account any more than the servants in a private\nhousehold.\n\nIt may perhaps be argued that court poets would be apt to exaggerate\nthe power of the royal family and consequently that the picture of\nits authority given here is misleading. Yet Amalaswintha, who was a\ncontemporary of Hygelac, appears to have acted on her own authority\nwhen she associated Theodahath, the nephew of Theodric, in the\nsovereignty with herself after her son's death. There is other evidence\nalso which goes to show that this passage truly reflects the spirit\nof the times. In the story of Radiger we see how a young princess\nwas able to gather together a huge army and bring about a sanguinary\nstruggle between two nations on account of an insult offered to her\nby a neighbouring king. Again, Paulus Diaconus (_Hist. Lang._ I 20)\nstates that the war between the Heruli and the Langobardi was due to\nthe murder of the Herulian king's brother by a Langobardic princess.\nEven if this story is untrue, it is significant enough that it should\nobtain credit. To the prominent part played by women in determining the\ndestinies of nations we have already alluded (p. 337 f.). In particular\nwe may call attention to the position of Fredegond and Brunhild, who\nafter the deaths of their husbands practically ruled the kingdom of\nthe Franks. In the seventh century Hygd's action in disposing of the\nkingdom is easily outdone by Sexburg, the widow of the West Saxon king\nCoenwalh, who is said to have kept the throne for herself.\n\nThere is no doubt of course that the ease with which kings and princes\nwere able to draw their nations into war was due largely to the\nrestless spirit which animated their retinues. Sometimes indeed they\nappear to have been drawn into war against their own inclination.\nProcopius (_Goth._ II 14) differs from Paulus Diaconus in the cause\nwhich he assigns for the outbreak of the war between the Heruli and\nLangobardi. According to him it was due entirely to the fact that the\nHeruli could not endure a peace of more than three years duration,\nand consequently forced their king into hostilities. The Frankish\nking Lothair I is said by Gregory (IV 14) to have been driven into a\ndisastrous campaign against the Saxons from the same cause. In this\ndirection then we may certainly recognise the influence of the court;\nbut the pressure probably came not from the old councillors, but from\nthe younger men who hoped to gain riches and glory thereby.\n\nThis brings us to the question of international relations. What is\nsaid in the opening verses of Beowulf regarding Scyld Scefing, the\neponymous ancestor of the Danish royal family, may probably be taken as\na standard description of a typical successful king of the Heroic Age:\n\"He deprived many dynasties of their banqueting halls ... and gained\nglory after glory, until every one of his neighbours across the whale's\nroad had to obey him and pay him tribute.\" With increasing wealth\nhowever the love of peace frequently reasserted itself, especially\nperhaps towards the end of the period, by which time the kingdoms had\nmaterially decreased in number and consequently increased in size.\nWe now see alliances more and more taking the place of conquest.\nTheodric organised an alliance not only with the Visigoths but also\nwith the kings of the Thuringians, Heruli and Warni, which extended his\ninfluence from the Mediterranean to the North Sea; and his name seems\nto have carried weight as far as the eastern part of the Baltic. In\nBeowulf too we see the nations of the Baltic dealing with one another\nfor the most part on friendly terms.\n\nThat such alliances were primarily of a personal rather than a national\ncharacter is shown in two ways. In the first place they were often\ncemented by marriage. Thus two of Theodric's daughters were married to\nAlaric, king of the Visigoths, and Sigismund, king of the Burgundians,\nrespectively, his sister to Thrasamund, king of the Vandals, and his\nniece to Irminfrith, king of the Thuringians, while Theodric himself\nmarried a sister of Clovis. We have seen (p. 98) that similar marriages\nwere contracted by the kings of the Warni, while the Frankish royal\nfamily was intermarried with those of practically all the surrounding\nnations. In the North the same custom seems to have prevailed, for\nin Beowulf one of the Swedish kings, probably Onela, is married to a\nsister of the Danish king Hrothgar. The term _fri\u00f0uwebbe_ (usually\ninterpreted as 'weaver of peace'), which we find applied to ladies of\nroyal rank in Anglo-Saxon poetry, probably owes its origin to this bond\nof union between kingly families. Such marriages seem to have sometimes\ntaken place after a war, as in the case of Ingeld and Freawaru in\nBeowulf.\n\nSecondly, we hear of kings entering into a relationship called\n'fatherhood' and 'sonship' with other kings. For an example we may\ncite one of Cassiodorus' letters (_Var._ IV 2), addressed to a king\nof the Heruli and informing him that Theodric creates him his 'son in\narms' (_filius per arma_), which is a great honour[554]. The letter is\naccompanied by a valuable present of arms and horses. Parallels are to\nbe found in much later times. We may refer to the Saxon Chronicle, ann.\n924, where the Scottish king (Constantine II) and several other princes\nin northern Britain accept Edward the Elder as 'father and lord.' It\nis scarcely to be doubted that in such cases the 'son' is expected\nto render assistance to the 'father' when required. The king of the\nHeruli appears to have been in alliance with Theodric[555], while\nMalcolm I, the successor of Constantine II, was under an engagement\nwith Edmund to be his \"cooperator both by sea and by land[556].\" The\n_imperium_ which Bede (_H. E._ II 5) ascribes to several English kings\nin all probability involved somewhat similar obligations; and it rested\nwithout doubt upon an acceptance of lordship, if not of fatherhood.\n\nAfter the establishment of overlordship the next stage is that in\nwhich the smaller kingdoms are annexed and incorporated by the larger\nones--generally in consequence of a revolt. The place of the native\nking or kings is often taken at first by a member of the victorious\ndynasty; but such arrangements were seldom lasting, and before long the\nnational organisation was abolished. The completion of this process\non the Continent belongs of course to times subsequent to the Heroic\nAge, while in this country it took place still later. But we can see\nsuch changes going on within the Heroic Age itself. At the end of the\nperiod the number of Teutonic kingdoms on the Continent was quite\nsmall. Several however, such as those of the Alamanni, the Burgundians\nand the Thuringians, had disappeared within the last half century; in\nthe fourth century they were probably far more numerous. Many of them\nmay have been quite insignificant, like the petty kingdoms which are\nsaid to have existed in Norway--eight apparently in the district of\nTrondhjem alone--down to the time of Harold the Fair-haired. Several\nof the nations which figure prominently in Tacitus' works had perhaps\ndisappeared still earlier. At all events they are never mentioned\neither in historical works or traditions referring to the Heroic Age.\n\nThe reverse process cannot be traced so clearly. The division of a\nkingdom between brothers or other relatives does not seem as a rule to\nhave led to a permanent partition. Very often indeed it was apparently\nno more than a temporary distribution of estates and spheres of\njurisdiction, not necessarily in solid blocks[557]. In such cases the\nkingdom was still regarded as one property, of which the kings were\njoint possessors. But there can be no question that many kingdoms\nestablished on alien soil, e.g. in Britain, were offshoots from other\nkingdoms.\n\nThis consideration brings us to the much debated question of the\nrelationship between kingdom and nation. It has been assumed by\nmany scholars that among the Teutonic peoples the kingdom was a\ncomparatively late outgrowth from the nation or tribe. In reality\nthis problem seems to me to have much in common with that of the hen\nand the egg. With the earliest kingdoms of all we are not concerned\nhere; it will be enough to mention that our earliest historical\nnotices testify to the prevalence of kingship, though not always to\nmonarchy in the strict sense of the term. In the Heroic Age however we\ncertainly find kingdoms springing up where no nation or tribe, properly\nspeaking, can be said to have existed previously. We may cite the\ncase of Odoacer, who in 476 made himself king in Italy with the help\nof his troops. In principle we may regard him as the _princeps_ of a\n_comitatus_. Then we have to consider the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.\nThe Mercian royal family traced their descent from Offa, the ancient\nking of Angel, while the West Saxon dynasty claimed to be sprung from\nthat Wig, the son of Freawine, who was earl of Slesvig under Offa's\nfather, according to the story preserved by Saxo. But to the origin of\nthe rest the genealogies give us no clue. If they were all of royal\norigin--and apparently they did claim divine descent--the Angli must\nhave possessed a numerous royal class; and we are scarcely justified\nin denying that this may have been the case[558]. On the other hand it\nis by no means impossible that some of them were sprung from foreign\npeoples, such as the Danes, Swedes or Warni. But what we may regard as\npractically certain is that the individual kingdoms did not rest upon\na national or tribal foundation. There is not the slightest ground\nfor supposing that (e.g.) the East Anglians as a people belonged to\na different nation or tribe from the Northumbrians. It is scarcely\ncredible that the first kings were anything else than _principes_ in\ncommand of _comitatus_, whether they set out from the homeland in this\nposition or established themselves at a later date by severing their\nallegiance from other kings in Britain itself.\n\nNor is there any reason for supposing that this phenomenon was peculiar\nto Britain. The story of Waldhere tells of the presence of small\nTeutonic communities in eastern Gaul, each under a royal family\nof its own. And not only heroic stories but also historical works\nrelating to the earlier part of the Heroic Age frequently refer to\ncomparatively small bands of warriors--such as that led by the Goth\nSarus in Stilicho's time--in various parts of the Roman empire, and\neven beyond its borders[559]. Such bands may very well have produced\ncommunities like the one ruled by Waldhere's father[560]; but it would\nbe absurd to speak of them as nations or tribes. They have clearly far\nmore in common with the military kingship established by Odoacer. The\npeculiarity of his position indeed lies only in the magnitude of the\npower to which he attained.\n\nIn brief we have to distinguish between two classes of kingdoms in the\nHeroic Age. In the new kingdoms, settled on foreign soil, we find an\nessentially military kingship, an _imperium_ vested in a particular\nfamily. These kings either established themselves in Roman cities,\nsuch as Ravenna, Langres or York, or moved about from one royal estate\nto another. Of national assemblies we have frequently no trace at\nall, while the council is identical with the _comitatus_ and consists\nof relatives and nominees of the king. Such kingdoms often rest on\nno national or tribal foundations; the king and his _comitatus_ form\nthe nucleus of the organism. On the other hand the older kingdoms,\nespecially in the North, retained many features of a more primitive\nconstitution. The king's position had a religious significance, and\nhis capital, e.g. at Leire or Gamla Upsala, was the chief national\nsanctuary, at which assemblies, primarily religious but possessing\nconsiderable political influence, took place from time to time. It is\nlikely too that the councils here were originally permanent bodies with\nmore or less fixed prerogatives--essentially religious, but yet by no\nmeans without political power. Between these two types of kingdoms we\nfind others of an intermediate character, especially in nations which\nhad migrated _en masse_; and there can be little doubt that during\nthe Heroic Age even the most conservative of the older kingdoms were\ninfluenced by the newer type. It is the newer type of course which we\nmust regard as truly characteristic of the Heroic Age.\n\nIn post-heroic times again we find a reversion to the national idea\nof a kingdom, though on a much larger scale. In English history this\ntendency can be traced from the seventh century onwards. In Bede's\nworks it is clear that such an expression as _Merciorum gens_ (_Myrcna\nmaeg\u00fe_) had come to mean something more than the royal family of the\nMercians with their property and dependents. By the ninth and tenth\ncenturies however this feeling is much more clearly perceptible. We\nmay cite King Alfred's will, where it is clearly recognised that the\nkingdom should not be divided up as a family property. But it is not\nuntil the time of Aethelred II that the full sense of the king's\nresponsibility to the nation finds expression in definite terms.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe form of government which we find depicted in the Homeric poems\nseems to be not unlike that which we have discussed above. Here\ntoo kingship is universal--apparently also without any recognised\nconstitutional limitations to the royal authority. The murder or\nexpulsion of a prince is not unknown; but such cases are due to strife\nwithin the royal family. Any differences which we can detect between\nthe authority of Homeric kings and that wielded by early Teutonic\nrulers may be ascribed partly to the much smaller size of the kingdoms\nand partly to a social feature noted in the last chapter (p. 363 f.),\nnamely that in many Greek communities kingly or princely rank seems to\nhave been claimed by a number of different families.\n\nThe last consideration is especially prominent in the Odyssey[561]. The\nthrone of Ithaca has been in the possession of one family for three\ngenerations. Yet in I 394 ff. Telemachos says that there are many kings\nof the Achaeans, both young and old, in the island, and he expects that\none of them will take the sovreignty, now that Odysseus is dead. In\nScheria also we hear of twelve sceptre-bearing kings under Alcinoos;\nbut to this case we shall have to return shortly. That a king was not\nnecessarily a person of great magnificence may be inferred also from\none of the scenes depicted on Achilles' shield (Il. XVIII 556 ff.),\nwhere we find a king in the harvest-field watching the work of the\nreapers and feasting on the spot. We are reminded here of the story of\nthe Norwegian king Sigur\u00f0r S\u00fdr who was summoned from the harvest-field\nto greet his stepson, St Olaf, and whose state-robes had to be sent to\nhim there in order to enable him to make a suitable appearance[562].\n\nIn this connection it is perhaps worth noting that according to the\nCatalogue of Ships the contingents supplied by several communities were\nunder a number of different princes. Thus the Epeioi have four leaders\nand the Boeotians five, without counting those from Orchomenos and\nAspledon. The troops from Argolis (exclusive of Agamemnon's dominions)\nare led by three princes, all of whom according to later authorities\nwere related--two of them, Diomedes and Sthenelos, being sons of\nAdrastos' daughters, while the third, Euryalos, was his brother's\nson[563]. Diomedes is said to be the commander-in-chief, but as\nSthenelos is his charioteer the relations between them are evidently of\nan intimate character. It is not stated whether all these princes were\nactually reigning kings, or merely leaders selected for the expedition;\nbut Diomedes and Sthenelos at least have no fathers living.\n\nThere is no evidence, so far as I am aware, for any form of election\nfor kings. In the case of Bellerophon we are told that \"the Lycians\napportioned him a demesne\" (\u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd); but it was the king who\ngranted him half the royal rights. And similarly in all other cases the\nkingly power seems to have been obtained from some relative by blood\nor marriage. This renders it more easily intelligible that the plural\nkingship--if such it was--of which we have spoken above, may be due\nultimately to family arrangements. It is scarcely necessary to suppose\nthat in such cases the kingdom was always divided into geographical\nhalves and quarters. As to the relationship between the various kings\nunder such an arrangement--e.g. whether the phrase \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\napplied to Diomedes in Il. II 567 means a formal recognition of\nlordship on the part of his colleagues--we have apparently no precise\ninformation.\n\nThe religious aspect of kingship is not very prominent in the Homeric\npoems. When the armies are gathered together to perform a sacrifice\nAgamemnon acts as priest (Il. III 271 ff.) with the cooperation of\nPriam, and Nestor seems to take the chief part in sacrifices at Pylos\n(Od. III 444 ff.). There is no reason for supposing that such cases\nare exceptional; as in the North (cf. p. 367) the king or chief\nperson seems likewise to have acted as priest. We do occasionally\nhear of priests of sanctuaries, such as Chryseus at the opening of\nthe Iliad; but no mention is made of state-priests or tribal priests.\nIn historical times the case was otherwise. Thus Athens possessed\na state-priest known as \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. The name of the office itself\nshows that it was a relic of the kingship which had been gradually\nstripped of all except its religious duties. Political power here was\ntransferred at first to an official called \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, whose origin may\nhave been similar to that of the Frankish _maior domus_. We may note\nalso that at Sparta, where the institution of kingship was preserved\nin a modified form, priestly functions were among the chief duties\npreserved by the kings.\n\nThe poems themselves do not make it clear that the religious aspect\nof kingship amounts to more than priestly position, for such phrases\nas \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f63\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03ae\u03bc\u1ff3 are scarcely free from ambiguity. But later\nauthorities give us much more information in this respect. In the first\nplace we may notice certain legends, such as that of the impious king\nSalmoneus, who aspired to the functions of Zeus--a story which is now\nthought by many scholars to have arisen from a misunderstanding. More\nthan one of the early Attic kings also seem to have been regarded\nas at least partly divine[564]. But above all we have to take into\naccount the statement of Clement of Alexandria (_Protr._ II 38) that\nthe Spartans worshipped a certain \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, which has led\nsome writers to assume that Agamemnon was originally a god. In all\nprobability the true explanation is furnished by Tzetzes[565], who\nsays that in early times kings regularly bore the name \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. We have\nan interesting parallel here to the usage of the ancient Swedes[566],\nwhose kings are said to have been called Yngvi (cf. p. 367). In both\ncases we may probably infer that the king was regarded in some sense\nas the god's representative; possibly he personated him on certain\noccasions. Yet it must be remembered that this aspect of kingship is\nnot brought forward in the poems[567]. If our sketch of the history of\nHomeric poetry is correct in its main outlines, we must conclude that\nthe divinity of kings was not a doctrine to which supreme importance\nwas attached in the courts themselves.\n\nNational or tribal assemblies are not often mentioned. In Od. VIII\n26 ff. Alcinoos addresses the Phaeacians in their assembly (\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae)\nand declares to them his resolve to assist Odysseus. Again, in II 6\nff. Telemachos calls an assembly in Ithaca. But on this occasion the\nfirst speaker, Aigyptios, says that the assembly has not met since\nthe departure of Odysseus, some twenty years before, and further that\nhe wonders who it is who has called them together now. The former\nstatement seems to indicate that such meetings were not held regularly,\nwhile the latter at first sight suggests that it was open to anyone\nto call them, and consequently that they were of a quite informal\ncharacter--in spite of certain rules of procedure which seem to have\nbeen usually followed. But the conditions here are abnormal. The king\nhas disappeared and no one has yet taken his place; Aigyptios is\nperhaps scarcely prepared to expect that the young Telemachos would\nsummon the assembly. It is true that in Il. I 54 ff. the Achaeans\nare called together by Achilles, not Agamemnon; but here we have to\ndeal with a confederate army in the field[568], and with a prince who\nshortly afterwards sets Agamemnon's authority at open defiance. There\nis scarcely sufficient ground for supposing that a similar course would\nhave been possible at home, when the king was on the spot. Further, it\nis to be noted that on all the above occasions the notice served is\nso short that only those in the immediate neighbourhood could attend.\nOn the whole then we are probably justified in doubting whether any\ndefinite rules existed as to when the assembly should be called, and\nindeed whether this body had much in common with the constitutionally\nregulated assemblies of historical times[569]. It seems rather to be\na more or less fortuitous gathering called together on the spot by\ncriers when the king wishes to bring something before the notice of the\npublic[570].\n\nIn Od. III 5 ff. we certainly do hear of a great public\ngathering--indeed we may probably say a national gathering--of a kind\nwhich can only have taken place at definitely fixed times. But it\nis clear that this was essentially a religious festival[571]. Such\ngatherings may of course have been used for political purposes, as in\nthe North; but we have no information on this subject.\n\nThe Achaean 'council of elders' (\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) in the Iliad seems to\nbe a body of quite as informal character as the assembly. On several\noccasions Agamemnon calls together a small number of princes, namely\nNestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus, together\nwith his brother Menelaos. This number of course forms only a small\nproportion of the leading men in the army. Occasionally however we find\nothers summoned, such as Meges and even Thrasymedes and Meriones, who\nare not the chiefs of contingents. The council of an expeditionary army\nhowever is an exceptional case. On the Trojan side we hear of a number\nof \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 with Priam (Il. III 146 ff.), seven of whom are named.\nThree of them are brothers of the king, while others are fathers of\nthe most distinguished Trojan warriors. They are described as eloquent\norators, but no account is given of their deliberations. In the Odyssey\nreferences to councils are very rare. No mention is made of such a body\nin Ithaca. In Scheria however Alcinoos has twelve kings under him (VII\n390 f.), who clearly form his council and are to be identified with the\n'leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians' \u03a6\u03b1\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f20\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\nwho feasted in his hall (VII 98 f., 186; VIII 26, 41, 46 f.), though on\nOdysseus' arrival they were apparently not all present (VII 189). It\nmay be observed that in the account of the Phaeacian assembly Alcinoos\nuses the same formula as when he is addressing the princes in his hall:\n\"Hearken, ye leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians.\" His speech then\nis directed primarily to the princes--a fact which seems to indicate\nthat council and assembly were not very clearly distinguished. In this\nconnection we may note that in the assemblies of the Iliad, as in those\nof the ancient Germans, the speaking is almost invariably left to the\nprinces.\n\nSo far as the councils of the Iliad are concerned little can be said\nagainst the view that Agamemnon calls together from time to time those\nof the leaders in whom he has most confidence. The same may be true of\nAlcinoos' council[572]. But on the whole it seems more probable that\nthis is a permanent institution, with definitely fixed numbers and\nprivileges. The 'sceptre-bearing' under-kings are twelve in number,\nlike the councils of so many European peoples in ancient times. The\nagora where they meet, with its polished stones, is clearly a place\nspecially constructed for such functions and similar apparently to\nthe one described in the trial scene depicted on Achilles' shield (Il.\nXVIII 497 ff.), where the elders are seated on polished stones 'in a\nsacred circle.' We are reminded here of the Northern council of the\ngods--especially as described in Gautreks Saga, cap. 7[573]--and of the\n'circle of judgement' (_domhringr_), which we find at 'chief-places'\n(i.e. centres of jurisdiction) in Iceland. Possibly too we should refer\nto the stones used in the election of Scandinavian kings (cf. p. 368).\nIf we take the evidence as a whole it can hardly be denied that the\nPhaeacian council does seem to show the characteristics of a primitive\ncommunal organisation[574]. But it would be unwise to assume that\ncouncils of this type were universal in the Heroic Age.\n\nThe actual power possessed by the council, whatever its constitution,\ndoes not seem to amount to much. Agamemnon is often ready to take\nadvice from some of his colleagues, especially Nestor; and in Od.\nVII 167 ff. Alcinoos acts on the suggestion of the old Echeneos.\nBoth these cases may be compared with the story of Genseric (cf. p.\n369 f.[575]). But it is clearly as individuals that the councillors\nhave influence. In the Iliad Achilles acts on his own initiative and\nwithdraws from the war in open defiance of Agamemnon. But even in the\ncase of home councils--I mean councils of the kingdoms--we never hear\nof organised action. In Ithaca, where the king is away, no council\nseems to exist. Nor is any mention made of a council in the story\nof Agamemnon's death and Orestes' vengeance. This fact deserves to\nbe remarked all the more because we find apparently just the same\nphenomenon in Anglo-Saxon poetry, e.g. in Beowulf where the proceedings\nafter Hygelac's death are related. The natural inference to be drawn\nfrom the evidence is that the councillors were essentially advisers to\nthe king and that after his death or disappearance their standing was\ngone. But here again caution is necessary. It is difficult to believe\nthat such a description can be true of a council like that of the\nPhaeacians, however ready they may seem to follow the king in ordinary\ncircumstances.\n\nThe cases of emergency arising out of the misfortunes of Odysseus\nand Agamemnon bring to our attention another curious feature, again\npossibly analogous to the conditions described in Beowulf, namely\nthat the king does not seem to appoint a regent in his absence[576].\nOdysseus has entrusted his household to Mentor (Od. II 226 f.), and\nAgamemnon has put his wife in charge of a minstrel (_ib._ III 267 f.);\nbut nothing is said of the kingdom in either case. Are we to suppose\nthat the queen is the person in authority? Presumably, like Hygd, she\nhas command over the treasury; for (as also perhaps in the North) the\ntreasury seems to be connected with the queen's chamber. If it be\nobjected that the absence of any national control apart from the king's\n(or queen's) personal authority must have been productive of strife, we\nhave only to refer to the stories to see that dissensions, especially\nbetween members of the same family, were by no means of rare occurrence.\n\nWith regard to international relations warfare between different\nkingdoms does not seem to be particularly common. Apart from the siege\nof Troy we hear incidentally of a number of struggles, such as the\ntwo expeditions against Thebes, the war of the Aetolians against the\nCuretes, and those of the Arcadians and the Epeioi against Pylos, while\nreferences to buccaneering exploits are frequent. But on the whole the\nnormal state of relations between the various kingdoms is one of peace.\n\nAs in the Teutonic Heroic Age, we hear frequently of marriages between\ndifferent royal families. Agamemnon's offer of one of his daughters to\nAchilles is part of his attempt at reconciliation and may be compared\nwith the marriage of Ingeld and Freawaru. Menelaos marries his daughter\nto Achilles' son. Both these cases show that such marriages were not\nlimited to neighbouring families. So also Penelope the daughter of\nIcarios (whose home is not stated in the poems) has married the king of\nIthaca, while her sister is the wife of Eumelos at Pherai in Thessaly\n(Od. IV 795 ff.). Such marriages would doubtless do much towards\npromoting friendly relations between the various royal families.\nIndeed visits paid by one prince to another seem to be nothing very\nunusual[577]. Autolycos visits his son-in-law Laertes in Ithaca,\nand Odysseus later goes to stay with Autolycos in the neighbourhood\nof Parnassos. Helen recognises several of the Achaean princes from\nthe walls of Troy and remarks (Il. III 232 f.) that Idomeneus had\nfrequently been entertained by Menelaos in her old home.\n\nAgain, it can scarcely be doubted that the expedition against Troy\ninvolves the existence of relations of some kind between Agamemnon and\nthe other kings. But the character of Agamemnon's position in Greece\nitself is never clearly defined in the poems. According to Od. XXIV 115\nff. he has considerable difficulty in persuading Odysseus to take part\nin the expedition. On the other hand in Il. XIII 669 we hear of a fine\n(\u03b8\u03c9\u03ae) for those who refused to serve[578]. This passage however refers\nto a native of Corinth, who was doubtless a much nearer neighbour.\nIndeed the Catalogue of Ships (Il. II 569 ff.) represents the\nCorinthian contingent as under Agamemnon's immediate command. According\nto this section of the poem Agamemnon's own territories consist of\nthe north-western part of Argolis, together with at least the eastern\nhalf of Achaia, while the rest of Argolis belongs to Diomedes and his\ncolleagues. But in IX 149 ff. (291 ff.) it is clear that Agamemnon\npossesses part of Messenia, bordering apparently on Pylos (the\nterritory of Nestor). Further, we have to take into account that, apart\nfrom the Catalogue, neither poem gives evidence for the existence of\nanything which can fairly be called a kingdom in the Peloponnesos,\nexcept Pylos, Elis and the territories of the two brothers[579]. Taking\nthe positive and negative evidence together it seems probable that\nAgamemnon and his brother were regarded as ruling over the greater\npart of the peninsula, though certain cities and districts remained in\npossession of native princes, perhaps in a dependent position. Again,\nI am not aware that there is any evidence apart from the Catalogue\nfor supposing that the territories of the two brothers were regarded\nas definitely marked off from one another. From Il. IX 149 ff., taken\ntogether with the references to Sparta and Mycenae, we may infer the\ncontrary. On the whole it seems more probable that we have here to do\nwith a case of divided kingship, as so frequently among the Teutonic\npeoples, rather than with two separate kingdoms. In that case too we\nshall obtain a satisfactory explanation of the later tradition (cf. p.\n240) which claimed Agamemnon for Sparta or Amyclai.\n\nBeyond his own territories Agamemnon's authority does not seem\nto be represented as anything more than a somewhat indefinite\nhegemony--comparable probably with the relationship of Theodric the\nOstrogoth to his northern allies (cf. p. 373 f.). The army which he\nleads against Troy is furnished partly by his own subjects and partly\nby a number of princes whose positions may have varied from complete\ndependence to something which may best be described as alliance. A\ngood parallel is to be found in the army led by the Mercian king Penda\nagainst Oswio, which according to Bede (_H. E._ III 24) consisted of\nthirty _legiones_ under _regii duces_. Among these were the king of\nEast Anglia and several Welsh kings.\n\nHow Agamemnon acquired his imperial position we are not told; for\nscarcely anything is recorded of his doings before the Trojan war.\nFrom Il. II 104 ff. we may perhaps infer that his family had held a\npreeminent position before him[580], although Pelops was located by\nlater tradition in a different part of the peninsula[581]. Nor again\nis it made clear whether the hegemony remained with the family after\nAgamemnon's death. All that can be said is that the Odyssey represents\nMenelaos as a very wealthy king and that neither the poems nor later\ntradition give any hint of the rise of a new power in the Peloponnesos\nbefore the 'Return of the Heracleidai.' What may be regarded as certain\nis that no individual Greek prince attained to such a supremacy again,\nfor many centuries after the close of the Heroic Age.\n\nIn conclusion we must consider briefly the question how far the Homeric\nkingdoms rested upon a national or tribal basis (cf. p. 375 ff.). Upon\nthis question the nomenclature of the poems seems to throw some light.\nIn the north of Greece, except the plain of Thessaly, the inhabitants\nof the various kingdoms bear what are apparently national or tribal\nnames, e.g. \u0392\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u039b\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03af, \u0394\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f18\u03bd\u03b9\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u0391\u1f30\u03c4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03af,\n\u1f0c\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2--probably also \u03a6\u03c9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2 and \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 (\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2). The same is\ntrue of kingdoms outside Greece, e.g. \u03a6\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, \u03a4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2 and the various\nTrojan allies. But in the Peloponnesos the only names of this type are\n\u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03af, \u1f08\u03c1\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 and \u039a\u03b1\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2; for \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 and \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 are not primary\nnational names but derivatives of \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, while \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af is\na name, like _Engle_, applied to the inhabitants of many kingdoms.\nThis evidence, so far as it goes, tends to indicate that the southern\nkingdoms rested on a political or military rather than a tribal\nbasis--which is natural enough if we are right in believing that the\nPeloponnesian Achaeans were an offshoot from the Achaeans of northern\nGreece. It would seem then that these kingdoms are to be compared with\nthe newer kingdoms of the Teutonic Heroic Age, the nucleus of which\nconsisted of the kings with their military followings; and I am not\naware of the existence of any evidence inconsistent with this view. I\ndo not mean of course that these kingdoms were necessarily areas carved\nout by the sword, like the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. What I mean is that\nwe have no reason for supposing that Agamemnon's subjects believed\nthemselves to be of a different nationality from Nestor's subjects or\nthe rest of the Achaeans and that each of these kingdoms had a separate\ntribal organisation and tradition of its own.\n\nIf our observation is correct it is important to notice that several\nof the chief Achaean leaders belong to kingdoms which apparently\nrest on a non-national basis. Among them we have to include not only\nAgamemnon, Menelaos and Nestor, but also probably Idomeneus; for the\nname \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 in the Homeric poems can scarcely mean anything else than\ninhabitants of Crete. The followers of Diomedes and of Aias, the son\nof Telamon, likewise appear to bear no national names. The case of\nOdysseus is doubtful, since his subjects are described both as \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03af\nand \u039a\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2. The question is whether he is king of the Cephallenes\nin general or only king of Ithaca, with a temporary lordship over the\nrest of the nation. The only 'heroes of the first rank' who clearly\nrepresent national kingdoms are Achilles and Aias the son of Oileus.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have noticed many remarkable\nresemblances between the Homeric and the early Teutonic systems of\ngovernment. Not all of these however can be regarded as characteristic\nof the Heroic Age; some have been inherited in all probability\nfrom an earlier stage of development. Such are the religious type\nof kingship, the council of twelve and the national gathering for\nreligious (sacrificial) purposes[582]. The form of government\ntruly characteristic of the Heroic Age in both areas alike is an\nirresponsible type of kingship, resting not upon tribal or national\nlaw--which is of little account--but upon military prestige. Such\nkingdoms are often of recent origin and without roots in any national\norganisation. The assembly here, so far as it exists at all, is a\ngathering summoned at the king's pleasure, while the council consists\nof an indefinite number of his trusted followers, whose advice he may\nwish to have from time to time. Lastly, we may observe in both cases\na very strong tendency to develop intercourse between one kingdom and\nanother--partly by royal marriages and partly by the cultivation of\npersonal relations between the kings, which generally take the form of\na recognition of overlordship, though in varying degree. The general\neffect of this intercourse must have been to produce something in the\nnature of an international royal caste, and to break down tribal and\nlocal prejudices, at least in the highest ranks of society.\n\nWith the end of the Heroic Age the lines followed by Teutonic and\nGreek political history part company. In both cases, it is true, we\nfind a revival of national feeling. Among the Teutonic peoples however\nthe kingdoms constantly tend to decrease in number and increase in\nsize--partly by the process sketched above (p. 375) and partly by\npressure from without. In Greece on the other hand this tendency was\nbrought to an abrupt end[583] by the Thessalian and Dorian conquests,\nby which the richest parts of the country were brought into the power\nof populations in a lower stage of civilisation and governed largely\nby tribal principles and prejudices. The general effect of these\nmovements was to isolate the various communities--not only in the\nconquered provinces but also in those districts, such as Attica, which\nremained entirely or comparatively untouched. This isolation in turn\nwas probably favourable to the growth of internal dissensions. In the\nend at all events no king succeeded in maintaining a personal lordship\nover the rest of his class[584], even within the smallest communities.\nThe title came to denote an official with constantly diminishing\npowers, often indeed of an exclusively religious character, while the\nallegiance formerly owed to an individual was now transferred to the\nstate and its constitution[585]. At a later date, it is true, most of\nthe Greek states again came for a time into the power of individual\nrulers. But it is not until the days of Philip II, king of the\nMacedonians, that we find any single man holding an authority over the\nGreek world such as the poems attribute to Agamemnon.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[544] For analogies to this belief cf. Frazer, _Lectures on the Early\nHistory of the Kingship_, p. 112 ff. Especially interesting parallels\nare to be found in the region of the Congo; cf. Pinkerton, _Voyages and\nTravels_, Vol. XVI. pp. 330, 577.\n\n[545] Frequently used in poetry. The god's full name seems to have been\nYngvifreyr or Ingunarfreyr, both of which occur occasionally (cf. _The\nOrigin of the English Nation_, p. 231).\n\n[546] We may compare Ibn Fadhlan's account of the king of the\n(Scandinavian) Russians, who never put his foot to the ground. His\nduties also were discharged by a viceroy. Cf. Fr\u00e4hn, _Ibn Foszlan's und\nanderer Araber Berichte \u00fcber die Russen \u00e4lterer Zeit_, pp. 21, 23.\n\n[547] The priesthood figures very prominently in Tacitus' _Germania_.\nBut it is not safe to assume that the conditions described there are\nnecessarily more primitive than those which we find in much later times\nin the North.\n\n[548] Tacitus, _Hist._, IV 15.\n\n[549] Among the Ostrogoths during their war with the Romans (from\n535 onwards) we meet with several kings of non-royal birth; but the\nconditions were altogether abnormal. One king (Eraric) was a Rugian and\nappointed apparently by his own followers.\n\n[550] E.g. Athalaric the grandson of Theodric and Walthari the son of\nWaccho, king of the Langobardi. Aethelberht, king of Kent, must have\nsucceeded as a child. Heardred, the son of Hygelac, is represented as\nvery young.\n\n[551] Cf. especially Tacitus, _Germ._ 39; _Ann._ I 51.\n\n[552] For references see _Folk-Lore_, XI, pp. 280, 282 f., 300.\n\n[553] Cf. especially Gylf. 14, Yngl. S. 2, Gautreks S. 7.\n\n[554] In Beow. 946 ff. (cf. 1175 f.) Hrothgar pays a similar compliment\nto the hero, who is not a king at this time. Probably the intention is\nto do Beowulf a quite exceptional honour.\n\n[555] Cf. Cassiodorus, _Var._ III 3.\n\n[556] Cf. Chron., ann. 945. For the form of agreement entered into upon\nsuch occasions reference may be made to ann. 874, 921 (ad fin.) etc.\nThe terms probably varied from case to case.\n\n[557] For the case of the Frankish kingdom see Waitz, _Deutsche\nVerfassungsgeschichte_\u00b3, II, p. 145 ff.; Brunner, _Deutsche\nRechtsgeschichte_, II, p. 25 f.\n\n[558] In the account of Wulfstan's voyage given in King Alfred's\ntranslation of Orosius (p. 20 in Sweet's edition) it is stated that\nthe land of the Este (in East Prussia) contains very many fortified\nplaces (_burh_, i.e. probably stockaded villages) and that in each of\nthese there is a king. But it is scarcely probable that such primitive\nconditions survived among the Angli even four or five centuries before\nAlfred's time (cf. p. 380, note).\n\n[559] It is only in this way that we can account for the more or less\nsimultaneous appearance of Heruli in Gaul and on the Black Sea in the\nlatter part of the third century. In the fifth century this nation had\na powerful kingdom in Central Europe. We may refer also to the traces\nof various peoples (Angli, Warni, etc.) which we find in the basin of\nthe Saale, as well as to the kingdom of the Suabi in Spain, the Goths\nin the Crimea, etc. Abundant parallels are to be found in the history\nof the Viking Age.\n\n[560] It is quite possible that many of the leading characters in the\nheroic stories may belong to such communities, e.g. Hnaef, Sigmundr and\nSigur\u00f0r, He\u00f0inn, Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli, Haki and Hagbar\u00f0r.\n\n[561] In explanation of this phenomenon the view has been put forward\n(cf. Finsler, _N. Jahrb._ XIII 319 ff., 396 ff.; summarised 410 ff.)\nthat the form of government depicted in the Odyssey is really an\naristocracy, whereas the evidence of the Iliad is inconsistent owing\nto traditional reminiscences of a time of real kingship. Thus in the\nlatter poem \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 (in the singular) is generally used only of\nAgamemnon, though there are exceptions, e.g. I 331, where it is applied\nto \"Achilleus, dem der Titel, streng genommen, nicht zukommt, da Peleus\nnoch lebt\" (p. 404 f.). I do not think that this explanation is likely\nto carry conviction to anyone who has studied early Teutonic history.\nIt is clear that in early times throughout the Teutonic area--in\nEngland down to the end of the seventh century and in the North much\nlater--the title of king was applied to sons and other relatives of\nkings, as well as to dependent princes. The only qualifications for\nthe title were (i) royal birth, (ii) the possession of some kind of\nauthority or 'lordship' (\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ae). How small this authority might be can\nbe seen from St Olaf's Saga (Heimskr.), cap. 4, where we are told that\nOlaf had the title of king given to him by his followers; \"for it was\ncustomary that _herkonungar_ (i.e. Viking chiefs) who were engaged in\npiracy should take the title of king at once, if they were of royal\nbirth, although they governed no territories.\" The qualification of\nroyal birth however was essential. The title was not taken even by so\ngreat a man as Earl Haakon of Lade, who had kings practically dependent\non him. I see no reason for regarding the conditions depicted in either\nof the Homeric poems as different from what we find in the North,\nalthough, owing presumably to the smallness of the kingdoms, all the\nimportant characters appear to be persons of royal birth.\n\n[562] St Olaf's Saga (Heimskr.), cap. 30 ff.\n\n[563] This passage offers at least a partial explanation of the\nphenomenon which we have been discussing. If royal rank is traced\nboth on the male and female sides the kingly class will inevitably be\nnumerous. Such may have been the case among the Angli also at one time.\nBut it is not unlikely that at least in the remoter parts of Greece\neach 'city' or small district may have retained a royal family of its\nown, like the communities visited by Wulfstan (cf. p. 376, note). We\nmay refer to such a passage as Il. IX 395 f., if \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c9\u03bd here means\ndependent princes.\n\n[564] Cf. especially Cook, _Folk-Lore_, XV 385 f.\n\n[565] _Chil._ I 474 (\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4' \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5 \u0394\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2) and\nelsewhere. On this subject see Cook, _Class. Rev._ XVII 409, and\n_Folk-Lore_, XV 303 f. (cf. 301), where full references are given.\n\n[566] The parallel must not be pressed too far of course. According to\nTzetzes all kings were called \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. But apparently not all kings were\ndescended from Zeus; Nestor, for example, was sprung from Poseidon\naccording to Od. XI 254 ff. We may refer however to Hesiod, _Theog._\n96, where kings are said to derive their authority from Zeus, and\nto the Homeric epithet \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ae\u03c2 (possibly also \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2) which is\ncommonly applied to kings. Frey on the other hand was an ancestral god\nbut not the chief of the gods, though he is sometimes in poetry called\n_folkvaldi go\u00f0a_, which Saxo translates by _satrapa deorum_.\n\n[567] A trace of the belief that kings had power over the seasons (cf.\np. 367) may perhaps be found in Od. XIX 109 ff.\n\n[568] I cannot help thinking that evidence derived from the Achaean\ngatherings in the Iliad is somewhat precarious ground on which to build\nup a theory regarding the constitutional rights possessed by the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\nat home. The same remark applies to such a passage as Od. XII 297,\nwhere an important constitutional change (cf. Fanta, _op. cit._, p. 91)\nhas been inferred from the mutinous behaviour of a ship's crew.\n\n[569] It cannot fairly be argued from Od. II 192 f. that the assembly\n(apart from the king) has a right to impose fines, for the suitors here\nare relying not upon any 'constitutional' rights but on force majeure.\nIt is to be remembered too that Eurymachos appears to have designs upon\nthe throne (cf. p. 358 f.).\n\n[570] It has been suggested that the true name for such a gathering was\n\u03b8\u03cc\u03c9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03b8\u1ff6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2) and that this was something different from the \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\n(cf. Fanta, _op. cit._, p. 77); but the evidence for such a distinction\nis very far from convincing. We may refer to such passages as Od. XII\n318 and, more especially, to V 3 (\u03b8\u1ff6\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5), which is clearly parallel\nto Il. XX 4 (\u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5). Cf. Finsler, _N. Jahrb._, XIII 327.\n\n[571] In the Hymn to the Delian Apollo, v. 146 ff., mention is made of\na festal gathering of Ionians at Delos, apparently on a considerable\nscale. Similar gatherings may have been in existence quite as early,\nor even earlier, in other parts of Greece. For the festival at Pylos\nhowever much better parallels are to be found in the great religious\ngatherings which took place every nine years at Leire and Upsala, the\nold Danish and Swedish capitals. Cf. Thietmar of Merseburg, _Chron._\nI 9: _est unus in his partibus locus ... Lederun nomine ... ubi post\nnouem annos, mense Ianuario ... omnes conuenerunt et ibi diis suismet_\nXCIX _homines et totidem equos cum canibus et gallis pro accipitribus\noblatis immolant_. And Adam of Bremen, IV 27: _solet quoque post nouem\nannos communis omnium Sueoniae prouintiarum sollempnitas in Ubsola\ncelebrari. ad quam uidelicet sollempnitatem nulli praestatur immunitas.\nreges et populi omnes et singuli sua dona transmittunt ad Ubsolam_.\nIt does not appear however that on these occasions--in contrast with\nthe festival at Pylos--any of the victims were eaten. In this respect\nthey are probably to be compared rather with the great quadrennial\nsacrifices of the Gauls; cf. Diodoros, v. 32.\n\n[572] It is scarcely capable of proof that the picture of the Phaeacian\ncommunity in the Odyssey is derived from a Greek model (cf. p. 297 f.\nand note); but I believe I am following the generally accepted view in\nassuming this to be the case. The features noted here are such as we\nmight expect to find in a Greek community if we take into account the\nevidence of later times.\n\n[573] We may refer also to the r\u00f6kst\u00f3lar (judgement-seats) on which the\ngods sit when they gather in session (V\u00f6lusp\u00e1, str. 9, 23, 25).\n\n[574] For a true analogy we must of course turn to councils which were\nattached to the king's court. Such appears to have been the case with\nthe twelve chiefs of the Uppland Swedes who, according to St Olaf's\nSaga (Heimskr.), cap. 96, constantly attended the Swedish king, sitting\nin judgement with him and giving him advice in matters of difficulty.\nIf the meaning of Od. XIII 130 is that the Phaeacians in general are\ndescended from Poseidon, we have a further analogy with the same\ncommunity, who appear to have claimed descent from the god Frey. Cf.\nSaxo, p. 260 (in the catalogue of Ringo's warriors at Bravalla): _At\nSueonum fortissimi hi fuere.... qui quidem Fr\u00f8 dei necessarii erant\net fidissimi numinum arbitri.... iidem quoque ad Fr\u00f8 deum generis sui\nprincipium referebant_.\n\n[575] For Genseric's disregard of the general opinion of those present\na parallel is presented by Agamemnon's conduct in Il. I 22 ff.\n\n[576] Cf. Seymour, _Life in the Homeric Age_, p. 81.\n\n[577] It may be observed here that we often hear also of journeys\nfor trade and other purposes, as in Od. III 366 ff., where Athene,\ndisguised as Mentor, says she is going to the land of the Caucones\nto collect a debt. Voyages even to countries as distant as Egypt and\nPhoenicia are not unknown.\n\n[578] Cf. XXIII 296 ff., where a certain Echepolos (presumably a\nfictitious character) is said to have given Agamemnon a mare in order\nthat he might be excused from the expedition. This person belongs to\nSicyon, another adjacent city and likewise included in Agamemnon's\ndomain in the Catalogue of Ships.\n\n[579] The evidence of the Catalogue as to the dimensions of Diomedes'\ndominions is not corroborated elsewhere in the Iliad. The author may\nof course have derived his information from other sources, e.g. from\npoems dealing with the story of Adrastos and the expedition against\nThebes. But it is at least equally possible that he was influenced by\nthe desire of providing each king with dominions comprised in a compact\ngeographical area.\n\n[580] The passage suggests that the \u03c3\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd is regarded as a symbol\nof authority. Thyestes here appears between Atreus and Agamemnon.\nIn Od. IV 517 f. Aigisthos is said to have dwelt where Thyestes had\nformerly dwelt, though unfortunately the locality is not stated.\nThe two passages however are not necessarily inconsistent, for it\ndoes not follow that Agamemnon, when he took the _imperium_, would\ndeprive his relative of the estate on which he lived. For the method\nof succession--which was of course extremely liable to produce\nstrife--many Teutonic parallels might be cited. We may refer to the\nevents which took place on the death of Alfred the Great.\n\n[581] Thucydides (I 9) relates how Atreus acquired the sovereignty\nat Mycenae; but his account seems to be largely in the nature of a\nconjecture.\n\n[582] Among the Teutonic peoples we have records of such gatherings\nfrom the first century (cf. p. 369, note) to the eleventh (at Upsala;\ncf. p. 383. note). There is evidence also for similar festivals among\nthe Lithuanians and Prussians; cf. Matthias a Michov, De Sarm. Europ.,\nLib. II (in Grynaeus' _Novus Orbis Terrarum_, etc., Basel 1537, p.\n519): _insuper prima Octobris die maxima per Samagittas in syluis\npraefatis celebritas agebatur, et ex omni regione uniuersus utriusque\nsexus conueniens illuc populus cibos et potus quilibet iuxta suae\nconditionis qualificationem deferebat; quibus aliquot diebus epulati\ndiis suis falsis, praecipue deo lingua eorum appellato Perkuno, id est\ntonitru, ad focos quisque suos offerebat libamina_.\n\n[583] It is important to notice that the tendency appears to have been\nby no means so far developed as in the Teutonic Heroic Age. We cannot\ntell, it is true, how far the various dependent cities and districts\nremained in the hands of native royal families and how far they were\ngoverned by officials. In the latter category we may include such a\nperson as Phoinix (Il. IX 483 f.). But it is clear that the royal\nfamilies form a much larger proportion of the population than was the\ncase among the Teutonic peoples of the fifth century.\n\n[584] Teutonic analogies occur, though they are not common. We may\ninstance Bede's account (_H. E._ IV 12) of what took place after the\ndeath of Coenwalh, king of Wessex (about 673): _acceperunt subreguli\nregnum gentis et diuisum inter se tenuerunt annis circiter_ X, after\nwhich _deuictis atque amotis subregulis Caedualla suscepit imperium_.\nThe Saxon Chronicle certainly gives a different impression; and\nfrom Eddius, _Vita Wilfridi_, cap. 40, it appears that Centwine's\nauthority was recognised at least to some extent. Reference may\nalso be made to Procopius' statement (_Goth._ II 14) that--early in\nJustinian's reign--the Heruli slew their king, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n\u1f22 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; but the interregnum was\nof short duration. Earlier cases may be found among the Cherusci and\nother peoples of western Germany during the first century--where it is\nto be noted that Tacitus' _principes_ and _regnum_ correspond to Bede's\n_subreguli_ and _imperium_ respectively. I cannot help thinking that\nmuch confusion has been introduced into early Greek history through\nfailure to distinguish between kingship and lordship.\n\n[585] This is true even of Sparta. We may quote Herodotus' account\n(VII 104) of Demaratos' speech to Xerxes: \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (sc.\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad. It is the\nrecognition of this impersonal force--not of course any sense of\nuniversal right, but the 'law' of the community--which perhaps most\nclearly distinguishes post-heroic and pre-heroic society from that\nof the Heroic Age. The existence of such a force--operating, under\nreligious sanction (cf. p. 366), as a restraint upon the king's freedom\nof action--is implied by Tacitus, _Germ._ 7, 11. But it is a strange\nmisunderstanding which has led several scholars to compare the former\nof these passages with Beow. 73, where the limitations stated are those\nof Hrothgar's generosity, not of his power.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nRELIGION IN THE HEROIC AGE.\n\n\nIn the course of the Heroic Age many of the Teutonic peoples were\nconverted to Christianity. The change of faith began among the Goths\nsoon after the middle of the fourth century and must have spread\nvery quickly to the Vandals. The Gepidae and Langobardi seem to\nhave followed the example of these peoples in the course of the\nfollowing century. At the time of Justinian's accession the Heruli\nwere probably the only Teutonic people in eastern central Europe who\nremained heathen. In the west the Burgundians accepted Christianity\napparently about the beginning of the fifth century, and the Franks\nbefore its close. The conversion of England took place in the seventh\ncentury; that of the Frisians and Old Saxons for the most part in the\neighth. The Northern Kingdoms in general were little affected by the\nchange until towards the close of the tenth century, though the first\nmissionary efforts in Denmark and Sweden began before the middle of the\nninth. In parts of Sweden the heathen religion lingered on until late\nin the eleventh century.\n\nIn the Nibelungenlied it is clearly recognised, perhaps through\nscholastic influence, that the multitude assembled at Attila's court\nincluded both Christians and heathens; but no such distinction is\ndrawn in the English and Norse poems. In the former all the characters\nare made to speak as Christians, though they observe heathen rites;\nin the latter no indication is given that any of the characters were\nChristians. In point of fact there can be little doubt that most of\nthe persons who figure in the heroic stories were heathens. In all\nprobability such was the case with the earlier Goths, Eormenric\nand his contemporaries, as well as with all the characters of the\nDanish cycles. On the other hand the later Goths, Theodric and his\ncontemporaries, were certainly Christians, and so also were the\nBurgundians, Guthhere and his brothers, as well as Alboin, king of the\nLangobardi.\n\nWith the Christian religion we are not concerned here; for, greatly\nas it influenced the Teutonic peoples, it was in no sense native. It\nis to the religion which Christianity displaced that we must give our\nattention. Unfortunately however the records which have come down to us\nfrom the Heroic Age itself are entirely of foreign authorship, and on\nthe whole they give us extremely little information on this subject. We\nare bound therefore to base our account of Teutonic religion upon the\ncomparatively abundant evidence preserved in Scandinavian literature,\nthough we must not assume that the religion of the Heroic Age possessed\nthe characteristics which we find in the North some five centuries\nlater. When we have given a brief summary of the chief features of\nthis later religion we shall have to discuss in somewhat more detail\nthe small amount of information available for the earlier period. This\nis rendered all the more necessary by the fact that in works dealing\nwith the subject the religion of the Heroic Age has not generally been\ndistinguished from that of the Germans of Tacitus' time.\n\nNow the feature which will probably strike any one most forcibly from\na careful study of Northern religion is an extraordinary discrepancy\nbetween the mythical stories contained in the Edda and elsewhere on\nthe one hand and references to actual religious observances on the\nother. In the former we find the gods grouped together in an organised\ncommunity, of which Othin is the recognised head. Frigg is his wife,\nThor and many of the other gods his sons. Most of the mythical stories\ndeal with Othin's exploits and adventures, and serve to illustrate his\npower and wisdom. On the other hand the references to religious rites\npoint in quite a different direction. In Iceland, for which our records\nare most full, there is practically no evidence for the worship of\nOthin. Thor is by far the most prominent figure, and after him Frey;\noccasionally also we hear of Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r[586]. References to the worship\nof other supernatural beings, elves and landv\u00e6ttir (_genii locorum_),\nare not unfrequent. In notices referring to Norway the evidence is\nnot very different. We do indeed sometimes hear of worship paid to\nOthin, especially in legendary stories, relating to early times; but in\nreferences to what may be called the historical period--the tenth and\neleventh centuries--Thor and Frey are distinctly more prominent.\n\nTwo explanations have been given of this curious phenomenon. One is\nthat the cult of Othin was introduced into the North at a comparatively\nlate period and that it had not yet obtained a real hold at the time\nwhen Iceland was settled. This explanation has no foundation in\ntradition. Indeed the evidence of the stories points to an entirely\nopposite conclusion. Moreover it is worth noting that according to\nProcopius (_Goth._ II 15) the inhabitants of 'Thule' (i.e. Scandinavia)\nworshipped 'Ares' more than any other god. Since Othin is essentially a\ngod of war it is natural to suppose that he is the deity meant, rather\nthan the somewhat obscure T\u00fdr.\n\nThe other explanation is that the cults of Othin and Thor belonged\nto two different classes of the community, the former to princely\nfamilies and their retinues, the latter to the country people, more\nespecially the (non-official) landowners. This explanation seems to be\nin complete accordance with the facts. There is no evidence for the\nworship of Othin either in early or late times except by princes or\npersons attached to their courts, while there are very few instances\nof the worship of Thor by such persons. Further we may note that while\nnames compounded with _Th\u00f3r-_ (e.g. _Th\u00f3rkell_, _Th\u00f3rolfr_) are about\nthe commonest type of all among the ordinary free population, both in\nNorway and Iceland--and such names are significant since they denote\nthat the persons who bore them were dedicated to the god--they are\npractically unknown in royal families. It will be convenient now to\ngive a short sketch of the two deities and their cults.\n\nThor is represented as a middle-aged man of immense bodily strength.\nHe is well disposed towards the human race and looked upon as their\nprotector against harmful demons, to whom he is an implacable foe. In\nthe poems Thrymskvi\u00f0a and H\u00fdmiskvi\u00f0a and in a number of prose stories\nwe have descriptions of Thor's adventures with giants, in which he is\ngenerally represented as breaking their skulls with his hammer. He uses\nno weapon except the hammer, and when he travels he either walks or\ndrives in a car drawn by goats. When he comes to the assembly of the\ngods he is said to wade through certain rivers on the way. His escort\nnever consists of more than three persons; very often he goes alone.\nThe picture which the stories give us is clearly that of an idealised\nNorwegian countryman of primitive times. There are scarcely any traces\nof his original connection with the thunder, though in Sweden it was\nclearly remembered.\n\nThe portraiture of Othin offers the greatest possible contrast to that\nof Thor. He is represented as an old man, generally with one eye, and\nhe gains his ends not by bravery or physical strength but by wisdom and\ncunning. Sometimes we find him coming, usually in disguise, to giants\nor witches, in order to gain from them some magical power or knowledge\nof the future; sometimes he imparts his knowledge, again generally\nmagical, to men. He presents his favourites with weapons and instructs\nthem in the art of war. Above all he is the god who gives victory in\nbattle.\n\nOthin's chief dwelling is called Valh\u00f6ll (the 'hall of the slain'),\nand all persons who fall in battle were believed to go to him there.\nHence we find such expressions as 'to go to lodge with Othin' or 'to\ngo to Valhalla' used as euphemisms for 'to be killed.' Before joining\nbattle it is said to have been customary to throw a javelin over the\nenemy with the words 'Othin has you all.' After a battle prisoners\nwere commonly sacrificed to Othin, and on such occasions, and indeed\nat all human sacrifices, the formula regularly used was: 'I give thee\nto Othin.' The usual method of sacrifice was by hanging or stabbing\nor a combination of both. With this practice we may probably connect\na somewhat obscure myth recorded in H\u00e1vam\u00e1l, str. 138, according to\nwhich Othin was sacrificed to himself, by hanging and stabbing, on the\nworld-tree. Certainly it is to be noted that the sacrifices to Othin\nseem to have been invariably human. They were clearly rites of quite a\ndifferent character from the sacrificial feasts frequently mentioned\nin the sagas, where the victims consisted of horses, oxen and other\nedible animals, part of which was offered to the gods, while the rest\nwas consumed by the worshippers. We do sometimes hear of horses being\nsacrificed with men, but on such occasions dogs and hawks are also\nmentioned, and there is no evidence that any of the victims were eaten.\nThere are very few records of human sacrifices to any god except Othin.\n\nThe picture of Valhalla presented to us in the poems is a glorified\ncopy of a military king's court[587]. The vast number of slain warriors\nassembled there in Othin's service spend their days in single combats\nand their evenings in feasting. Beside them we find the Valkyriur\n('choosers of the slain'), Othin's adopted daughters, who distribute\nale to the feasters. These also are sent out by Othin to decide the\nissue of battles and to select warriors for Valhalla. It is noteworthy\nthat the term _Valkyriur_ seems to be applied both to supernatural\nbeings--what may perhaps be called minor divinities--and also to living\nwomen endowed with supernatural powers, such as that of flying. Thus\nboth Brynhildr and Sigr\u00fan, the wife of Helgi Hundingsbani, are called\nValkyries; and it was for deciding a fight contrary to Othin's command\nthat the former was punished with perpetual sleep.\n\nIn Ynglinga Saga, cap. 8, Othin is said to have ordained \"that all dead\nmen should be burnt and brought on to the pyre with their property.\nHe said that every dead man should come to Valh\u00f6ll with such property\nas he had on the pyre.... But the ashes were to be cast out into the\nsea or buried down in the earth.\" Valhalla seems to be represented\nas a spirit world somewhat far away and not connected at all with\nthe burial place. This observation brings us to another remarkable\ndiscrepancy between the traditions and the customs which we find\nactually prevailing in the North. We know both from descriptions in\nthe sagas and from discoveries made in modern times that in the last\nfew centuries before the adoption of Christianity it was customary\nto bury the dead in their ships or in elaborately constructed wooden\nchambers--the whole being covered with a barrow of considerable size.\nIn the Prologue to Snorri's Heimskringla this custom is said to be\nof later date than the one attributed to Othin; first was the age of\nburning, then the age of barrows. Now there is evidence both from\nthe discoveries and from the sagas themselves that the barrows were\nregarded as sacred and that the spirits of the dead were believed\nto dwell either within them or in the immediate neighbourhood. Not\nunfrequently we hear of persons coming to a barrow to consult the\nspirit. Sometimes the ghost, embodied in the corpse, even defends\nhis property against grave-robbers. The activities of the dead are\noften represented as injurious; but this is by no means always the\ncase. On one occasion we hear of a dispute between several different\ndistricts for the possession of the body of a king whose reign had been\ndistinguished by great prosperity.\n\nOn the whole then it is clear that the cult of the dead was practised\nin the North very much as in most other parts of the world. Yet modern\ndiscoveries have brought to light abundant evidence for cremation in\nthe early iron age--sometimes in spots which are marked by no external\nmonument--so that the statements of Ynglinga Saga may be regarded\nas based on good tradition. We are driven to conclude therefore\nthat in their conception of immortality, as in their theology, the\ninhabitants of the North held two wholly inconsistent views--or,\nperhaps it would be more correct to say, two entirely opposite views\nas to the desirability of retaining the souls of the dead. In Iceland\nthe practice of cremation seems to have been extremely rare, but when\nit was resorted to the object is said to have been to get rid of a\ntroublesome ghost. The one view of immortality was by no means so\nclosely bound up with the cult of Thor as the other was with that of\nOthin. But it certainly prevailed among Thor's worshippers.\n\nThe next most important deity after Othin and Thor was Frey. His cult\nwas widely spread in Norway and Iceland; yet according to tradition\nits true home was Sweden[588]. The Swedish royal family and nobility\ntraced their descent from Frey, and Upsala, their capital and the chief\nsanctuary of the North, was believed to have been founded by him. In\nYnglinga Saga, cap. 12 f., we have an account of him which is worth\nquoting as an illustration of Northern manes-worship. Frey is here\nrepresented as a prince whose reign was characterised by unparalleled\nprosperity. His death was concealed for three years. But when it became\nknown, the Swedes would not burn him; for they believed that prosperity\nand peace would last as long as Frey was in Sweden. They made a great\nbarrow for him therefore and poured into it the tribute which they had\nbeen wont to pay him; and they worshipped him for prosperity and peace\never afterwards. A very similar account is given of the Danish king\nFr\u00f3\u00f0i the Peaceful--from which we may infer that in Frey we have to\ndeal not with a deified man but with a mythical character--a 'king of\nthe golden age.' His name originally seems to have meant 'prince' or\n'lord' (Ang.-Sax. _frea_, cf. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be); very probably it was at one time a\ntitle of the Swedish kings[589].\n\nFrey appears to be regarded as a youthful god. The blessings for which\nhe was worshipped were peace and fertility, both of the crops and\nlivestock, as well as of the human race. His power of controlling the\nweather may be accounted for by his association with the Swedish kings\n(cf. p. 367); but it is clear that his character contains elements\ndrawn from more than one source. His father Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r, who is sometimes\nassociated with him, possesses much the same characteristics, though\nhe appears to be more particularly connected with the sea. There can\nbe little doubt however that both he and his son have inherited the\nattributes of an ancient earth-goddess. Although there has been a\nchange of sex, Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r's name is identical with that of Nerthus (_id\nest Terra Mater_), a deity who according to Tacitus, _Germ._ 40, was\nworshipped on 'an island in the ocean'--in all probability Sj\u00e6lland.\nNi\u00f6r\u00f0r also has a daughter called Freyia (i.e. \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, \u0394\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1), who\nis represented as a female counterpart of Frey. It is worth noting\nthat she is sometimes associated with the next world. According to\nGr\u00edmnism\u00e1l, str. 14, she shares the slain equally with Othin.\n\nThe deities with which we have just been dealing were collectively\nknown as Vanir. They were held to be of a quite different stock from\nthe Aesir, to whom Othin and Thor belonged, and according to the\nmythology had been given to the latter as hostages. Of the other\ndeities those who figure most prominently in mythical stories are Frigg\n(Othin's wife), Ullr, Hoenir, T\u00fdr, Heimdallr, I\u00f0un, Gefion and Balder;\nbut we seldom hear of worship paid to any of these.\n\nIn the Edda all the gods together form a regularly organised community.\nTheir home is called \u00c1sgar\u00f0r, and they hold their meetings beside the\n'world-tree,' Yggdrasill's Ash. It is to be observed that \u00c1sgar\u00f0r is a\ntotally different conception from Valhalla[590]; it is not an abode of\nthe slain. Indeed in this connection Othin himself does not appear to\nbe represented as a god of the dead. But apart from \u00c1sgar\u00f0r each god\nhas a special abode of his own--Thor at Thr\u00fa\u00f0heimr, Ullr at \u00dddalir,\nNi\u00f6r\u00f0r at Noat\u00fan, Balder at Brei\u00f0ablik, etc. All these localities\nare mythical--or at all events incapable of identification. It is a\nstriking characteristic of Northern mythology that the gods are not\nassociated with any known localities. Practically the only exceptions\nare Frey and Gefion, who are connected by tradition with Upsala and\nSj\u00e6lland respectively; and neither of these connections is preserved\nin the poems of the Edda. In order to understand this feature we must\nof course bear in mind the fact that our mythological records are\nalmost entirely derived from Iceland, which lies far away from the old\nnational sanctuaries.\n\nIt is probably due to the same cause that we hear but little of\nspecial cults. In Iceland the only noteworthy exception is that,\nbeside the more usually prevailing cult of Thor, we find a number of\npersons who are devoted to the service of Frey. Certain chiefs bear\nthe title _Freysgo\u00f0i_ ('priest of Frey'); in one case a whole family\nbore the surname _Freysgy\u00f0lingar_. Temples apparently sometimes\ncontained the figures of a number of gods, though Thor's or Frey's is\nusually the only one mentioned by name. In Norway however the case is\nsomewhat different. We hear frequently of temples and statues of Thor,\noccasionally also of those of Frey. But in addition to these there are\nnotices of sanctuaries belonging to other deities--though not to Othin.\nIn Fri\u00f0\u00fei\u00f3fs Saga, cap. 1 (and passim), mention is made of a temple and\nimage of Balder in the district of Sogn. It is the fashion to treat\nthis incident as a product of antiquarian speculation; but there is\nlittle in the story itself to justify such a view, and the fact that\nthe worship of Balder is not found elsewhere proves nothing. More\nimportant however is the fact that in a number of records we hear of\nstatues and temples of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r, with whom her sister Irpa\nis sometimes associated. There can be no doubt that under the rule of\nEarl Haakon of Lade the cult of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r was more prominent than that\nof any other deity, at least in the district of Trondhjem. This fact is\nthe more remarkable because Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r and Irpa are never associated in\nany way with the rest of the gods; in the poems of the Edda and even in\nGylfaginning their existence is ignored.\n\nA very interesting illustration of the practice of special cults occurs\nin Ni\u00e1ls Saga, cap. 88, which describes a temple owned in common by\nEarl Haakon and Gu\u00f0brandr, a powerful _hersir_ (hereditary local chief)\nin the highlands. This temple contained figures of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r and Irpa\nand also of Thor in his car[591]. We know from other sources that the\ncult of Thor was hereditary in the family of Gu\u00f0brandr. Indeed it\nappears to be generally true that families adhered to the same cult\nfrom generation to generation[592], though in one case we do hear of\nan Icelander bearing the title Freysgo\u00f0i, who belonged to a family\ndistinguished for its service to Thor.\n\nThe relations between the worshipper and his deity were of a personal\nand intimate character; he regarded the latter as friend, counsellor\nand protector. Where the two are of different sexes the relationship\nis apt to take a conjugal form. Thus in the Flateyiarb\u00f3k, I p. 107\nf., Olafr Tryggvason, after robbing one of Earl Haakon's temples, and\ncarrying off the image, calls out in derision: \"Who wants to buy a\nwife? I think Th\u00f3rkell and I are now responsible for this woman, since\nshe has had the misfortune to lose her husband who was exceedingly dear\nto her.\" One of the bystanders then addresses the image: \"How is it,\nTh\u00f3rger\u00f0r, that thou art now so humiliated and stripped in unseemly\nwise of the splendid apparel wherewith Earl Haakon had thee clothed\nwhen he loved thee?\" So in the poem Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0 Freyia speaks of her\ndevoted worshipper, \u00d3ttarr the son of Innsteinn, as her husband. We\nmay compare with this the fact that in the Flateyiarb\u00f3k, I 337 f., the\npriestess in charge of Frey's temple in Sweden is said to have been\ncalled his wife. I see no reason therefore for supposing that Snorri\nwas giving rein to his imagination when he stated (Yngl. Saga, cap. 5)\nthat Gefion was the wife of Ski\u00f6ldr who, though a mythical character\n(cf. p. 131 f.), was not a god.\n\nSometimes again we meet with a definitely hostile attitude towards\na deity--generally Othin--and it must not be supposed that such\nideas first arose after the introduction of Christianity. In Saxo's\ntranslation of the lost Biarkam\u00e1l the hero suspects that Othin is\namong the enemy and expresses his eagerness to attack him. If once\nhe can catch sight of him, he says, the god will not escape from\nLeire unharmed[593]. Such ideas can only be explained by a vivid\nanthropomorphic conception of the deities.\n\nThe same attitude appears elsewhere. In Gautreks Saga, cap. 7--a story\nwhich contains many archaic features--we find the destiny of a man\nbeing determined by Othin and Thor, the former of whom is friendly\nto him, the latter hostile. In the introduction to Gr\u00edmnism\u00e1l as the\nresult of a disagreement with Othin Frigg plays a trick upon him which\nleads him into serious trouble. Nor is the married life of Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r and\nSka\u00f0i as happy as might be wished. But the chief cause of discord among\nthe gods is the malicious Loki. In the poem Lokasenna he charges most\nof the chief goddesses with unfaithfulness or unchastity, while at the\nsame time he reproaches the gods with unseemly conduct or with being\ninvolved in humiliating positions. The picture of the divine community\nwhich the poem presents to us is anything but pleasant. No doubt Loki\nis representing every circumstance in the most unfavourable light\npossible; but there appears to be a definite mythical foundation for\nmost of his charges.\n\nLoki serves as a connecting link between the gods and the i\u00f6tnar\n('giants'), a class of beings who are represented as generally hostile\nto both gods and men. Yet there are exceptions to this rule; and some\nof the gods, e.g. Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r and Frey, have wives from the i\u00f6tnar. Next\nto them we must mention the dwarfs, who are distinguished for their\ncunning and skill in metallurgy. Neither of these classes however\ncan properly be regarded as objects of worship. Elves were certainly\nworshipped, but only collectively, as far as we know. In early records\nthey are scarcely ever spoken of as individuals. Most probably their\norigin is to be sought in animistic conceptions, connected with the\ncult of the dead. On this last subject enough has been said above;\nwe need only add that the formal deification of dead men was not\nunknown[594]. Sacred trees and groves also figure as prominently as in\nother parts of Europe.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThus far we have been dealing with the religion of the Viking Age,\nprimarily as we know of it in Iceland and Norway. But we have seen\nthat the actual records of religion in Iceland agree in no way with\nthe theology of the Edda. Nor can it truly be said that the evidence\nfor Norway shows a better case. Here too we find the worship of Thor\nand Frey. But for the worship of Othin, Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r, Freyia and Balder the\nevidence is slight and generally doubtful. For that of the rest of the\ngods there is no evidence at all. On the other hand we find that the\ndeity who after Thor figures most prominently of all in these records\nis one who is entirely unknown to the theology of the Edda. The only\nconclusion which it seems to me legitimate to draw from these facts is\nthat the mythology of the Edda is not a true reflection of Norwegian\nreligion, at all events as it existed in the Viking Age.\n\nNow let us consider the various deities individually. It will be\nconvenient to begin with those whom we know to have been worshipped in\nNorway or Iceland. There is no question that Thor was known not only\nin Sweden and Denmark but also in Germany and England, under the forms\n_Donar_ and _Thunor_ respectively. Apart from local nomenclature and\nthe use of his name (as a translation of _dies Iouis_) in the fifth day\nof the week, there are a few direct references to worship of him--e.g.\nin the inscription on a brooch found at Nordendorf in Bavaria and in a\nLow German renunciation formula for the use of converts. His cult goes\nback without doubt to the Heroic Age and probably much earlier, though\nhe is apparently not mentioned by Tacitus.\n\nThe cult of Frey was believed to have come from Sweden, as we have\nseen. How old it was there we do not know; but there is some reason\nfor believing that it was not originally confined to that country. The\nSlavonic inhabitants of eastern Holstein worshipped a deity of the same\nname[595]; and the presumption is that they found the cult in existence\nwhen they occupied that district--not later than the seventh century.\nBut the name _Yngvi_ has a much longer history and can be traced in\nvarious records back to the time of Tacitus. From what is said of Ing\nin the Anglo-Saxon Runic Poem it is clear that he was a perfectly\ndefinite, though doubtless mythical, personality[596].\n\nWe have already noticed that Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r can be traced back to a goddess\nNerthus, who was worshipped in the first century by the Angli and other\npeoples in the south-western part of the Baltic. When the change of sex\ntook place we do not know. The feminine form of the deity is probably\npreserved in Freyia, who under the name _Skialf_ seems to have her\nroots in early Swedish tradition.\n\nWith Othin we shall have to deal presently. There is abundant evidence\nthat he was known not only in Sweden and Denmark but also in England\nand at least the greater part of Germany. In the two latter countries\nhe bore the names _Woden_ and _Wodan_ respectively. Even in Tacitus'\ntime he appears (under the name _Mercurius_) as the chief god.\n\nBalder's history is not so clear. From Saxo's account (p. 70 ff.)\nthere can be little doubt that he was known in Denmark. The question\nwhether he was recognised in Germany[597] depends practically upon the\ninterpretation of the (second) Merseburg charm, to which we shall have\nto refer again shortly.\n\nNow let us take the deities who are known to us only from the\nmythology. Both Frigg and T\u00fdr were certainly known in England and\nGermany. Their names are preserved in the sixth and third days of\nthe week. Frigg (_Frea_) also figures, as the wife of Wodan, in the\nLangobardic story quoted above (p. 115), while T\u00fdr (_Mars_) is\nmentioned more than once by Tacitus.\n\nOf Ullr traces are preserved in local nomenclature both in Denmark\nand Sweden. From Saxo (p. 81 f.) it appears that he was remembered in\nDanish tradition. Gefion's association with Sj\u00e6lland (cf. p. 400) is\nrecorded by Bragi Boddason, the earliest Scandinavian poet of whom\nanything has been preserved. Both her name and that of I\u00f0un can be\ntraced in local nomenclature in the same island[598].\n\nThere remain of course a large number of less important deities who\ncannot be traced outside the mythology of the Edda. Many scholars hold\nthat these were invented by Norwegian or Icelandic poets during the\nViking Age; but it is at least equally possible that our inability\nto trace them elsewhere is due in part to the extreme poverty of our\ninformation. One piece of evidence which tells in favour of the latter\nview is that the Merseburg charm preserves the name of one of the least\nprominent of these deities--Fulla, the handmaid of Frigg. The fact\ntoo that these poets made no attempt to incorporate Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r in the\npantheon seems to show that in their time[599] the theological system\nof the Edda was more or less crystallised. At all events it is clear\nthat, with the exception of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r and Irpa, all the deities whose\nworship is attested were known beyond Norway, and that most of them can\nbe traced back to the Heroic Age or still earlier times.\n\nThere is a further reason for doubting whether the theology of the\nEdda was a product of late Norwegian poetry. Perhaps the most striking\nconception in this theology is that of the 'world-tree,' Yggdrasill's\nAsh. I have pointed out elsewhere[600] that this conception is largely\nderived from a tree-sanctuary and that a fairly close parallel to it\nis furnished by the description of the Upsala sanctuary given in\nAdam of Bremen's history (IV 26 f.) and the annexed scholia. Similar\nsanctuaries may have existed in Norway; but we have no record of\none which possessed the same characteristics, and it is extremely\nimprobable that any of them ever attained an importance comparable with\nthat possessed by the Swedish capital. Again, there are features in the\npicture of the 'world-tree'--I would allude especially to the presence\nof snakes--for which no parallels can be found in any Scandinavian\nsanctuary of which we have record. Yet such features do occur in the\ntree-sanctuaries of more primitive peoples, especially among the\nPrussians and Lithuanians. From this it appears to me highly probable\nthat the conception of the world-tree dates from a comparatively\nearly period. The idea of universality which it embodied cannot be\nheld to prove the contrary; for this idea was possessed also by the\nIrminsul[601], the sacred pillar of the Old Saxons. We have no reason\nfor doubting that a philosophical conception such as this was possible\nbefore the Viking Age.\n\nI am inclined therefore to think that the theological system of the\nEdda in its main features dates from times anterior to the Viking Age.\nFrom earlier sources--the works of Tacitus and various German and\nEnglish authorities--we know altogether the names of about a score of\ndeities, half of whom belong to either sex. It is probable however\nthat a much larger number have been lost. At all events there can be\nno doubt that the religion of the Heroic Age was a highly developed\npolytheism. Procopius (_Goth._ II 15), speaking of the inhabitants of\n'Thule' (Scandinavia), says that they worship many gods and demons\n(\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2), both in the heavens and in the atmosphere, in the earth and\nin the sea, besides certain other spirits (\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1) which are said to\nbe in the waters of springs and rivers. Again, in the preceding chapter\nhe states that the Heruli of central Europe worshipped a great crowd of\ngods (\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd), whom they thought it right to\nappease even with human sacrifices. Procopius' evidence is important\nnot only because it is almost contemporary but also because he clearly\ndistinguishes between the religion of the Teutonic peoples and that of\nthe Slavs. Of the latter he says (_ib._ III 14) that \"they consider\none god, the creator of the lightning, to have sole control over all\nthings, and they sacrifice to him oxen and offerings of all kinds....\nYet they also reverence rivers and nymphs and some other spirits\n(\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1), and sacrifice to them all, using divination in these\nsacrifices.\" It will be seen that this type of religion is not very far\nremoved from what we find among the Thor-worshippers of Iceland.\n\nIn an earlier chapter (p. 255) we quoted from the Life of St Ansgar\nthe story of a man who claimed to have been present at an assembly of\nthe gods. From this story it is clear that in Sweden not very long\nafter the beginning of the Viking Age the gods were believed to form\nan organised community. For earlier times no such explicit information\nis to be found; but we can scarcely doubt that some similar belief\nprevailed during the Heroic Age. In the Langobardic story quoted above\n(p. 115) Fria (Frigg) is the wife of Wodan, as in the Edda. In the\n(second) Merseburg charm we find a number of deities taking part in\nan incantation. Of the goddesses Sunna is said to be the sister of\nSinthgunt, and Volla the sister of Fria. Evidence to the same effect is\nfurnished by a letter of Bishop Daniel of Winchester to St Boniface,\nin which the writer speaks of a genealogy of the gods and advises\nhis correspondent to put awkward questions to the heathen regarding\nthe origin, numbers and relationships of their deities[602]. It may\nbe noted that the earlier Anglo-Saxon genealogies, which go back\nprobably to the seventh century, trace Woden's ancestry back for five\ngenerations.\n\nOf course it is not to be denied that some of the deities of whom\nwe hear may have been recognised only locally or by certain nations\nor confederacies. Such an explanation is very likely in the case of\nmore than one deity mentioned by Tacitus, whom we cannot identify\nwith any probability. In later times the same may be true of the\ngod Fosite[603], to whom an island in the North Sea--identified with\nHeligoland by Adam of Bremen--was wholly dedicated. It is quite\npossible too that the god Seaxneat (_Saxnote_), who is mentioned in the\nRenunciation Formula and from whom the kings of Essex claimed descent,\nwas worshipped only by the Saxons.\n\nBut even if such evidence was a good deal stronger than it actually is\nwe should not be justified in inferring from it that the religion of\nthe Heroic Age was of an essentially national rather than universal\ncharacter. It is not only in Northern records of the Viking Age or the\nChristian period that we hear of families which were supposed to be\ndescended from Othin (Woden). Out of the eight royal genealogies of the\nEnglish kingdoms which have come down to us seven are traced back to\nthe same deity; and it is highly probable that most of these date from\nbefore the conversion[604]--i.e. from within a century of the Heroic\nAge. But Woden was not a national but a universal deity.\n\nMoreover what little we do know of this god from English and German\nsources is in full conformity with the character which he bears\nin Northern records. In the Anglo-Saxon poem on the Nine Herbs\nhe is skilled in magic; in the Merseburg poem he is an expert in\nincantations. In the Langobardic story we find him represented as the\ngiver of victory. In Tacitus' time he was already worshipped above the\nother gods; and human victims were offered to him. The same author\n(_Ann._ XIII 57) records the custom of dedicating a hostile army to\nMars and Mercurius--a vow which entailed the total destruction of\neverything belonging to the enemy. The great deposits of antiquities\nwhich have been found at Thorsbj\u00e6rg, Nydam, Vi and elsewhere are\ncommonly believed to be relics of such dedicatory spoils. Finally,\nlater popular belief often placed Woden at the head of the Wild Hunt\nor ghostly army. For the existence of a conception corresponding to\nValhalla we have no explicit evidence[605]. But such a doctrine would\nclearly be in full accord with all that we know of the cult.\n\nIn funeral rites both inhumation and cremation were practised. The\nlatter custom however seems to have died out almost everywhere before\nthe introduction of Christianity--in England about the middle of\nthe sixth century, among the Franks and Alamanni much earlier. Only\namong the Old Saxons it lingered apparently until towards the close\nof the eighth century, when it was rigorously put down after their\nsubjugation[606]. How far the two practices were associated with\ndifferent conceptions of immortality, as in the North, it is impossible\nto tell. In Beowulf (cf. p. 54) cremation is regarded as a pious duty\nowed to the dead; but all heathen references to the destiny of the soul\nhereafter have been removed from the poem. On the other hand there is\nevidence from later times for offerings at the grave, necromancy and\nall other practices usually associated with the cult of the dead[607].\n\nThe most important piece of evidence however on this subject is\nfurnished by Procopius' account of the Heruli (_Goth._ II 14). He\nstates that with them it was not lawful for a man to die of old age\nor disease. When he felt himself to be dying he had to request his\nrelatives to make away with him as soon as possible. They had then to\nconstruct a huge pyre and set the dying man in the highest part of\nit. A compatriot, though not a relative (cf. p. 346), is then sent up\nto stab the man, and on his return the wood is immediately kindled.\nWhen the fire is burnt out the remains are collected and buried\nforthwith, and the widow is required to strangle herself at the tomb.\nSuch rites as this are commonly ascribed to the desire to set the soul\nfree while in possession of its faculties. But in view of the fact\nthat in Northern tradition cremation is bound up with the doctrine of\nValhalla[608]--a doctrine which is in no way inconsistent with this\nexplanation--it is certainly significant that the two rites should be\nassociated here, more especially since the Heruli were an essentially\nmilitary people. On the whole the evidence of this passage is\ndistinctly favourable to the view that a belief closely approximating\nto the doctrine of Valhalla was prevalent during the Heroic Age.\n\nValkyries (_walcyrgan_) are not unfrequently mentioned in Anglo-Saxon\nliterature[609], and it is clear that similar beings were known in\nGermany, though this word does not occur in extant records. In England,\nas in the North, both human and supernatural beings were included\nunder this term, though they are not always clearly distinguished from\nwitches. But, more than this, the poetic description of valkyries\nwhich we find in the Edda[610] can likewise be traced in Anglo-Saxon\npoetry. In a charm against sudden pains we hear of mighty women who\nrode over the hill, mustered their host and cast their spears. The\nidea that sudden pains were due to the agency of such beings[611]\ncomes doubtless from popular belief; but the description cannot be\naccounted for in this way. Again, in the (first) Merseburg charm we\nfind supernatural women (_idisi_) taking part in a battle; and it is to\nbe remembered that the word _walcyrge_ can hardly mean anything else\nthan 'chooser of the slain.' Certainly we have no evidence to prove--or\ndisprove--that the valkyries were associated with Woden in early times.\nBut the features noted here again point clearly to the existence of a\nconception akin to Valhalla and, what is more, to the poetic treatment\nof such a conception.\n\nIn the course of this discussion[612] I have endeavoured to point out\nthat the theological system of the Edda cannot properly be regarded as\nan invention of (Norwegian-Icelandic) poets of the Viking Age--that, on\nthe contrary, it is derived in great measure from much earlier times.\nI do not mean to deny that the growth of the system has been very\nlargely influenced by poetry. But the evidence seems to me to show that\nthe poetic treatment of the subject had begun--and probably more than\nbegun--in the Heroic Age and among many of the Teutonic peoples. It\nis perfectly true that the notices of Teutonic religion contained in\nTacitus' works convey the impression that religion was regarded as a\nvery serious matter and that the general attitude towards the gods was\nhighly reverential. The same impression is conveyed by Alcuin's account\nof Fositesland; and probably no one will deny that the euthanasia of\nthe Heruli was based upon a very real conception of immortality. But\nto compare such records with the poetry of the Edda would manifestly\nbe absurd. For analogies to them we must turn to notices relating to\nactual religion, and here we shall find evidence that the people of the\nViking Age were no less religious than those of earlier times. We may\ninstance the reverence shown by Th\u00f3rolfr of Mostr to his holy hill and\nEarl Haakon's devotion to Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r.\n\nOn the other hand the attitude towards the gods shown in the Edda finds\nan exact analogy in the only record of 'theological' poetry which has\nsurvived from the Heroic Age. In the Langobardic story (cf. p. 115) the\nanthropomorphisation of the deities is already complete; and the chief\ngod[613] is duped by his wife. We could scarcely wish for a better\nparallel to the account given in the introduction to Gr\u00edmnism\u00e1l. In\nview of this story it is scarcely possible to doubt that familiarity,\nnot to say levity, in the treatment of the gods characterised the\npoetry of the Heroic Age, just as much as that of the Viking Age.\n\nIt would be well to hesitate however before assuming that the gods of\nTacitus' time were treated in the same way. His account shows that\nTeutonic theology had then passed beyond the purely tribal stage,\nand that certain deities were worshipped by a number of peoples, if\nnot universally. But it does not suggest the existence of a highly\nanthropomorphic conception of the gods. Further we have to bear in mind\nthat Tacitus is separated only by a century and a half from Caesar.\nThe account of German religion given by the latter (_B. Gall._ VI 21)\nis difficult to account for by any explanation. But unless we are to\nbelieve that Caesar was thoroughly imposed upon we must conclude that\nnothing in the nature of a developed polytheism can have existed in his\nday. To the theology of the Heroic Age his account of the Gaulish gods\n(_ib._ VI 17) would be far more applicable than what he says regarding\nthe worship of the Germans.\n\nThe question we have been discussing appears to throw some light\nupon the rapidity with which most of the Teutonic peoples accepted\nChristianity. The facts which we know with regard to the conversion are\nas follows: (1) that it almost invariably began in the king's court;\n(2) that violent opposition was offered only in kingless communities,\nas among the Old Saxons, or in defiance of the king's authority, as in\nNorway; (3) that after the conversion the gods (in general) disappear\nat once and for good; (4) that magical practices and the belief in\nspirits and even in certain female agricultural deities ('Erce,' Holda,\nBerhta, etc.) lasted among the country people for many centuries. From\n(4) we may probably infer that the religion of the country people\nwas chiefly animistic--similar no doubt to what we find in Iceland,\nwith the exception that we have little evidence for the cult of the\nthunder-god. Again, the explanation of (3) hangs together with (1);\nfor the statements of ecclesiastical writers render it clear that the\nreligion of the courts was essentially theistic. But it is plain from\nthe discussion in the Northumbrian council recorded by Bede (_H. E._\nII 13)--the only discussion of this kind of which we have any detailed\naccount--that here at least this religion retained little vital\nforce[614]. This fact is fully explained if, as I have endeavoured to\npoint out, theology had largely passed from the realm of dogma into\nthat of poetry.\n\nThe conclusion then to which we are brought is that Teutonic religion,\nat all events in the courts, underwent a profound change in the course\nof the Heroic Age. It is to be observed that in the earlier part of\nthat age--as in the earlier part of the Viking Age--we find, especially\namong the more northern peoples, a fanatical devotion to warfare\nfor its own sake, accompanied by lust for destruction and apparently\nalso by a vivid conception of a life hereafter. In the latter part\nof the Heroic Age these phenomena disappear, except among the Heruli\nwho, according to Procopius, differed from all the rest of mankind.\nThe ideal which the princes of the later period set before themselves\nmay be gathered both from Beowulf and from Roman authorities; it was\nto enjoy wealth and splendour in this life and to have their fame\ncelebrated by future generations. For their attitude towards a future\nlife the speech of the Northumbrian councillor recorded by Bede\n(_l.c._) may probably be regarded as typical[615].\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn a work such as this it is scarcely necessary to give even a brief\nsummary of the characteristics of Greek religion, since the main\noutlines of the subject are probably much more familiar than those\nof even the later religion of the North. At the same time the amount\nof information which has been preserved is so great and the unsolved\nproblems presented by the subject so numerous that it is clearly\nbetter left in the hands of experts. I shall attempt no more therefore\nthan to call attention to the salient points in which the religion of\nthe Homeric poems differs from that of later times and to the chief\ncharacteristics in which the former resembles or differs from the\nreligion of the Teutonic Heroic Age and the Viking Age.\n\nThe various objects of worship recognised in Greece belong in general\nto much the same categories as those which we have noticed above. They\nmay be classified roughly as gods, genii locorum and manes. In the last\nclass we may perhaps include the 'heroes,' though the position occupied\nby them is somewhat peculiar. They were for the most part characters\nof the Heroic Age, and sometimes we find the cult of the same hero\nrecognised in a number of different states. In general the worship of\nthe gods took a different form from that paid to the manes and heroes,\nthough occasionally the cult of a deity seems to have been associated\nwith, or superimposed upon, that of a hero.\n\nIn the Homeric poems the gods figure much more prominently than the\nother classes. The most frequently mentioned of them are Zeus, Hera,\nPoseidon, Athene, Apollo, Artemis, Hephaistos, Aphrodite, Ares and\nHermes. Zeus, as head of the divine community, corresponds to Othin\n(Woden); but in other respects there is little resemblance between the\ntwo. As god of the thunder his affinities are rather with Thor. Hera,\nas wife of the chief god, may be compared with Frigg, while Poseidon,\nas god of the sea, has an element in common with Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r; but he is also\nan earthquake god, which the latter is not. His characterisation also\nis much more clearly marked. Apollo and Artemis, as a pair of young\ndeities, brother and sister, with certain characteristics in common,\nbear some resemblance to Frey and Freyia; but the sexual element, so\nprominent in the Northern deities, is wanting in the Homeric poems.\nOn the whole the translator of the Icelandic New Testament seems\nto have been happily inspired in rendering _Diana_ (Artemis) by\n_Gefion_[616], while Freyia's true counterpart is rather to be found\nin Aphrodite[617]. Hephaistos, the smith of the divine community, has\nno Northern god corresponding to him; as the maker of heroes' armour\nand other metal objects he plays the same part as Weland. Ares, as god\nof war, has an element in common with T\u00fdr. The Homeric Hermes bears no\nresemblance to Othin; his duties are to a certain extent discharged\nby the valkyries in Northern mythology. Athene is a character totally\nforeign to Northern theology.\n\nAll the above deities, together with a number of others less important,\nform a regularly organised community, like the Aesir. Their home\nis located on Mount Olympos in the north of Thessaly--a conception\nprobably more primitive than \u00c1sgar\u00f0r, which is never represented as a\nplace known to the human race. But, though Olympos is the home of the\ngods collectively, most of them (like the Northern deities) have also\none or more dwelling-places of their own, often in distant localities.\nThus Poseidon's home is at Aigai and Apollo's at Delphoi, though he\nis also connected with several localities on the eastern side of the\nAegean--Chryse, Cille, Tenedos, etc. Athene has a home at Athens, while\nHephaistos is connected with Lemnos, Ares with Thrace and Aphrodite\nwith Paphos in Cyprus. Zeus himself, apart from Olympos, has abodes at\nDodona and Ida.\n\nThe belief that the gods had homes of their own in various localities\nis clearly to be taken in connection with the fact that they are said\nto have sanctuaries in the same places. Thus Aigai is mentioned,\ntogether with Helice, as a place where sacrifices were offered to\nPoseidon (Il. VIII 203 f.). Zeus' home at Dodona is his sanctuary\n(_ib._, XVI 233 ff.), and it is to her sanctuary at Paphos that\nAphrodite goes (Od. VIII 362 f.). We need not doubt therefore that,\nas in later times, the cults of the various deities were largely of\na local character. It is a different question of course whether the\ncults--or rather the deities themselves--were of local or tribal\norigin; but in certain cases such an explanation appears to be by no\nmeans improbable. Many scholars believe that Ares was originally a\nThracian deity; and the fact that he is represented as the father of\nBoeotian heroes can scarcely be regarded as conclusive evidence to the\ncontrary. In Il. IV 51 f. Hera states that three cities, Argos, Mycenae\nand Sparta, are specially dear to her; and there is little evidence\nthat her cult was ever prominent in any other part of the Greek\nmainland. If the same explanation is true of such deities as Apollo\nand Aphrodite we must suppose either that their cults have spread\nfrom one locality to another or that deities belonging to different\nlocalities have been identified. The local origin of river gods, such\nas Spercheios and Scamandros, is of course clear enough; but these are\nlittle more than genii locorum.\n\nBut the really important feature in Homeric theology is that the\nvarious deities, whether of local origin or not, are all brought\ntogether as members of one community, or rather family, and that as\nsuch they are represented as meeting with universal recognition.\nIndeed, they are not regarded even as peculiar to the Greek race; the\nTrojans recognise the same divinities, and Poseidon goes to receive\nsacrifices even from the Ethiopians. A similar, though less important,\ncommunity is that of the marine deities, one of whom, Thetis, figures\nprominently in the Iliad.\n\nThe spirit in which the gods are treated is in general very similar to\nwhat we find in the Edda, and in no way more reverential. Sometimes the\ntreatment is humorous, as in Thrymskvi\u00f0a; sometimes again the deities\nare represented in a very unfavourable light. For the trick played\nupon Wodan by Fria in the Langobardic story (cf. p. 115) we have an\ninteresting parallel in Il. XIV 292-353, where Hera distracts Zeus'\nattention from the war and coaxes him to sleep. But this is only one\nof a number of incidents which give a generally unpleasant picture of\nthe domestic life of this pair, much more so than is the case with\nOthin and Frigg in the Edda. Again, the story of Ares and Aphrodite,\nwhich forms the subject of Demodocos' lay (Od. VIII 266-366), is very\nmuch what we should expect to find in a poem dealing at length with the\nscandalous charges brought against the goddesses in Lokasenna. Ares'\nspeech in v. 292 ff.--as also Hermes' remarks in v. 339 ff.--may be\ncompared with those of Frey in Sk\u00edrnism\u00e1l. In the Iliad the same two\ndeities are more than once treated contemptuously.\n\nThe same spirit is shown in the treatment of the relations of gods with\nmen. It is frequently recognised that deities ought to show gratitude\nto their worshippers for the sacrifices offered to them, as Freyia does\nin Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0, though at the same time they are at liberty to refuse a\npetition, as in Il. VI 311--a case which may be compared with Frey's\nconduct in V\u00edga-Gl\u00fams Saga (cf. p. 253). In the Iliad we find several\ndeities taking an active interest in the fortunes of the war--Poseidon,\nHera and Athene on the side of the Achaeans, and Apollo, Ares and\nAphrodite on that of the Trojans. Poseidon more than once comes to\nrouse the Achaeans, when he thinks they are becoming slack. Apollo and\nAthene interfere in the struggle in a manner which strikes the reader\nas unfair; indeed the latter is frequently guilty of flagrantly mean\nand dishonourable conduct towards her opponents. The attitude of the\nheroes themselves to the gods is quite in keeping with the way in which\nthe latter treat them. Achilles openly abuses Apollo for deceiving\nhim (Il. XXII 15 ff.); and Diomedes attacks and wounds both Ares and\nAphrodite, but only after assurances or assistance from Athene. In\nthis respect the Homeric princes are not quite so bold as the hero of\nBiarkam\u00e1l (cf. p. 402 f.).\n\nBut it is by no means only towards communities that the deities\ndisplay their favour or hatred. Indeed their attitude towards the\ncontending forces at Troy seems to be largely determined by their\nrelations with certain individuals, especially Helen and Paris. In\nthe Odyssey Poseidon is represented as persecuting Odysseus, one of\nthe Achaean leaders, for many years on account of the injury done\nby him to Polyphemos. On the other hand both this hero and Diomedes\nenjoy the special favour of Athene. It is worth noting that Diomedes\nappears to have inherited this favour from his father (cf. Il. V 800\nff.), and the same may be true in the case of Odysseus (cf. Od. XXIV\n367 ff., 517 ff.); at all events it is continued towards his son.\nIn neither of these cases is any hint given of conjugal relations,\nsuch as we find in the North; indeed the sexual element seems to be\npractically absent from Athene. Elsewhere however such relations are\nclearly involved, e.g. in the cases of Aineias and Achilles, who are\nthe sons of Aphrodite and Thetis respectively. In the Odyssey (V 119\nff.) the principle is stated plainly; and the hero himself has conjugal\nrelations with Circe and Calypso, both of whom are described as\ngoddesses.\n\nOf other mythical beings the genii locorum are perhaps the most\nprominent. The distinction between them and the class with which we\nhave been dealing is by no means so clearly drawn as in the north of\nEurope (cf. p. 407 f.). Many of them are even described as gods (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03af).\nRiver gods, such as Spercheios and Axios, are represented as the\nfathers or ancestors of several heroes. Among other, less important,\nbeings of the same type we may mention the nymphs[618] to whom certain\ncaves and springs were sacred (e.g. Od. XIII 347 ff., XVII 205 ff., 240\nff.).\n\nReferences to chthonic deities are not very frequent. The Erinyes\nare mentioned several times, especially in curses; but they are\nnot individualised, though the singular is occasionally used. The\nmost important person in the under-world appears to be the queen,\nPersephoneia; but she is never actually brought upon the scene. Hades\nhimself is seldom more than a name.\n\nThe sacrifices to the gods mentioned in the Homeric poems are as a rule\nsimilar to the sacrificial feasts of which we hear in the North.[619]\nA portion of the victims, usually bulls or rams, was offered to the\ndeity, while the rest was consumed by the worshippers. On the other\nhand we hear occasionally of victims which were given wholly to the\ngods. Such appears to have been the case with the victims sacrificed\non the occasion of a solemn oath; thus in Il. XIX 267 f. the boar is\nthrown into the sea[620]. It is perhaps worth noting that both here and\nin III 276 ff. the oath refers to chthonic deities[621], as well as to\nZeus, the Sun and Earth. Victims sacrificed to the dead likewise seem\nto be offered entire (e.g. Od. XI 44 ff.; Il. XXIII 166 ff.). Moreover\nit is only in connection with funeral rites that we hear of human\nsacrifices, namely when Achilles puts to death twelve Trojan youths\nat the pyre of Patroclos (_ib._, 175 f.). Horses and dogs are also\nsacrificed on this occasion, as well as oxen and sheep, and the whole\nscene is in accordance with Northern custom. No mention is made in the\npoems of sacrifices such as that of Polyxene, which form so favourite a\ntheme with the dramatists; but in view of the Northern evidence[622] we\nare entitled to doubt whether they are altogether inventions of later\ntimes.\n\nThe theology of the Homeric poems received formal recognition in\nGreece down to the acceptance of Christianity; but there is no evidence\nthat the system as a whole possessed any vital force even in the\nearliest times of which we have record. From the sixth century onwards\npoets and philosophers began to regard Zeus as much more than the chief\nof the gods; but even in popular religion it appears that each state\nhonoured certain deities, while the rest were largely or altogether\nneglected. Thus at Athens more prominence seems to have been given to\nAthene, and perhaps also to Poseidon, than to Zeus, while Hera was\npredominant at Argos and Samos, and Apollo at Delphoi, etc. This is\na feature for which the Homeric poems themselves give evidence, as\nwe have seen, and there is no reason whatever for supposing it to be\nof later growth. Sometimes too we find prominence given to deities,\nsuch as Demeter and Dionysos, who seem to be of little consequence in\nthe Homeric poems, while other cults, such as that of Serapis, were\nintroduced from abroad in comparatively late times.\n\nChthonic deities are more prominent in later literature than in the\nHomeric poems; and many authors describe the worship paid to them down\nto a comparatively late period. Yet the rites seem to have been of\na primitive character. But perhaps the most striking element in the\nreligion of classical Greece was the worship of 'heroes.' Every city\npossessed shrines (\u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03b1), at which sacrifices were offered to heroes\nwith rites similar in general to those used in the worship of chthonic\ndeities. Originally these heroes seem to have been local persons and\nthe shrines their tombs; but characters prominent in heroic poetry\nsometimes received worship in many different states.\n\nIn the Homeric poems there is no evidence for this hero-worship. Indeed\nthese poems contain few traces of a cult of the manes at all, except\nin funeral ceremonies and in connection with the necromantic sacrifice\nof Odysseus. This fact has been connected with the Homeric doctrine\nof immortality[623], and in view of the Northern evidence (cf. p. 397\nff.) there can be little doubt that the true explanation is to be found\nherein. The method used in the disposal of the dead is cremation,\nand, as in the North, it was believed that this sent the spirit away\nfrom the body to a place of the dead--not a separate place for each\nparticular family or community but a common home for the souls of the\nwhole Greek race. In Il. XXIII 65 ff. the spirit of Patroclos comes and\nexhorts Achilles to pay him the last rites: \"Never again shall I return\nfrom Hades, when ye have allotted me the due of fire\" (V. 75 f.). So\nalso when Odysseus visits the home of Hades the first spirit he meets\nis that of his follower Elpenor, who reproaches him with not attending\nto his obsequies and begs him, when he returns to Circe's island, to\n\"burn him up with his arms, all that he possesses.\" The idea is clearly\nthe same as in Ynglinga Saga, cap. 8. The honourable way therefore to\ntreat a fallen foe is not to strip him but to burn him with his armour,\nas in Il. VI 417 ff.[624] Even at the beginning of the historical\nperiod this belief seems not to have entirely died out. According to\nthe story told by Herodotus (v. 92), when Periandros sent to consult\nthe spirit of his wife Melissa, she complained that the clothes which\nhe had given her at her funeral were of no use because they had not\nbeen burnt.\n\nIt has already been mentioned (p. 261) that this story seems to show\nthat at one time the home of the dead was located in a definite, though\nprobably not very well known, region; and the vague indications given\nas to the hero's wanderings in the Odyssey can hardly be regarded as\nevidence to the contrary. If this is correct the home of Hades is in\none respect probably a more primitive conception than Valhalla, just as\nOlympos is more primitive than \u00c1sgar\u00f0r. A reasonable explanation would\nbe offered if we had evidence that part of the population of Greece\nwas believed to have come from that region[625]. An idea of this kind\nwas certainly in Snorri's mind when he wrote the Ynglinga Saga; but\nunfortunately the account which he has given is obviously, at least to\na large extent, of scholastic origin.\n\nIn other respects however the Homeric conception of immortality\nappears to be less simple than the doctrine of Valhalla, as we find\nit in certain Northern records. The use of the verbs \u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and\n\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 is probably capable of a different explanation; but there\nare certain other words and expressions, e.g. \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (Hades; cf. also Il. XX 61 ff.), which seem to point to\na belief that the world of the dead was beneath the earth. That is\nthe conception implied in certain local beliefs which we meet with in\nlater times, at Hermione and elsewhere, where a deep cavern or lake was\nsupposed to lead thither. More important however is the fact that the\nhome of Hades is totally devoid of the attractiveness of Valhalla; the\ngloomy picture which is drawn of it accords rather with the Northern\nhome of Hel. The burning of the body, together with armour and funeral\nsacrifices, appears to procure little real advantage to the soul; it\nis regarded, as in Beowulf, rather in the nature of an honour due to\nthe deceased. Yet in view of the parallels which we possess, both from\nthe North and elsewhere[626], we can scarcely doubt that the custom had\nits origin in a much stronger motive, the force of which was scarcely\nappreciated in later times. For a change of feeling, if not of actual\nfaith, positive evidence is supplied by the reprobation expressed in\nIl. XXIII 176--a passage as significant in its way as the homiletic\nverses which follow the reference to heathen sacrifices in Beow. 175\nff. (cf. p. 53).\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the course of this chapter we have noticed a considerable number\nof features common to Greek and Teutonic religion. Many of them are\nto be found in other religions also, and these we need not discuss\nfurther. Here we are concerned only to determine what may be regarded\nas characteristic of the Heroic Age. In this category we may probably\ninclude the following features.\n\n1. The religion was predominantly a worship of gods, rather than of\nspirits. Herein lies the chief contrast with the religion of later\ntimes in both regions[627]. In Classical Greece chthonic worship and\nhero worship seem on the whole to be more prominent than that of the\ngods. The same is true of Scandinavian countries in the latest heathen\nperiod, though Thor is still prominent and hero worship is scarcely\ndistinguished from manes worship. In Germany and England, where\nChristianity was adopted during the Heroic Age or soon afterwards, the\ngods disappear at once, while forms of chthonic worship survive for\ncenturies.\n\n2. The same gods were, to a large extent at least, recognised\neverywhere. Whether by borrowing or by identification of cults they had\nceased to be merely tribal deities. How far back this feature goes in\nGreece we cannot tell. Among the Teutonic peoples we can trace it in\npart back to Tacitus' time; but it was probably intensified during the\nHeroic Age.\n\n3. The conception of the gods was definitely anthropomorphic. For\nthe Teutonic Heroic Age this is made clear by the Langobardic story.\nThere is no absolutely conclusive proof that the gods in general were\nregarded as forming a regularly organised community, as in the Edda and\nthe Homeric poems; but all the evidence which we have (cf. p. 407 f.)\npoints in this direction.\n\n4. The relations between gods and human beings are of a somewhat\npeculiar character both in Teutonic poetry and in the Homeric poems;\nbut they are almost identical in the two cases. The gods are not\ntreated with any very great reverence. The conduct attributed to them\nis not unfrequently reprehensible, their purposes can often be thwarted\nby the help of other gods, and the bravest warriors are sometimes even\nready to attack them openly. Yet the human and the divine are not\nconfused; a man is not a god, though many heroes, both Teutonic and\nGreek, are sprung from gods. It should be observed that the deity from\nwhom most English princes claimed descent is Woden, a universal and not\na tribal god. This belief must be regarded as an anti-tribal force.\n\n5. Both in Northern tradition and in the Homeric poems the practice of\ncremation was associated with the belief in a common home for the souls\nof the dead. This practice does not appear to have been common even\nin the earlier part of the Viking Age; and consequently the tradition\nprobably comes down from the Heroic Age, at which time we know that\ncremation was widely prevalent. The cheerless home of Hades[628]\ndiffers considerably from Valhalla, though there is some ground for\nsuspecting that the Greeks of the Heroic Age had once cherished a\nbelief endowed with greater vitality. But both conceptions possess\ncertain essential features in common, namely the removal of the soul to\na distant place--a belief really incompatible with the local worship of\nheroes or manes--and the fact that this distant place of souls was a\nuniversal home and not reserved for the souls of one tribe. This belief\nagain was doubtless an anti-tribal force of considerable importance.\n\nBriefly then we may define as the predominant characteristic of\nheroic religion, both Greek and Teutonic, the subordination of\nchthonic and tribal cults, which as a rule go together, to the worship\nof a number of universally recognised and highly anthropomorphic\ndeities--coupled with the belief in a common and distant land of souls.\nThese characteristics, at all events among the Teutonic peoples,\nseem properly to have belonged only to the religion of the royal and\nmilitary classes. Hence, when the royal families are converted to a new\nfaith, as in England, or when kingless states grow up, as in Iceland,\nwe find in all cases more or less of a reversion to the more primitive\nforms of religion. It is on the same principle that I would account for\nthe differences in religion between heroic and historical Greece.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[586] These are the three gods mentioned in the solemn oath which,\naccording to Landn\u00e1mab\u00f3k, IV 7 (Hauksb\u00f3k), had to be sworn on the\nsacred bracelet at all legal proceedings: _hialpi m\u00e9r sv\u00e1 Freyr ok\nNi\u00f6r\u00f0r ok hinn alm\u00e1ttki \u00c1ss_, etc. In the later Melab\u00f3k (a compilation\nof the seventeenth century) it is suggested that _\u00c1ss_ here means\nOthin; but I do not think this explanation is generally accepted. It is\nscarcely credible that Thor should be ignored on such an occasion.\n\n[587] The description in Gr\u00edmnism\u00e1l, str. 23, curiously recalls what\nis said of Egyptian Thebes in Il. IX 383 f. The nearest approach to\nValhalla to be found among Northern kingdoms is Ibn Fadhlan's account\nof the Russian court; cf. Fr\u00e4hn, _l.c._ (p. 367, note).\n\n[588] Frey's connection with Sweden appears in Saxo's History\n(frequently) as well as in sagas, but not in the Edda.\n\n[589] The full form, _Yngvifreyr_ or _Ingunarfreyr_, is clearly\nconnected with _Ingwina frea_, a title borne by the king of the Danes\nin Beowulf; cf. p. 367 and note.\n\n[590] The two conceptions are sometimes confused, e.g. in V\u00f6lusp\u00e1, str.\n34. But the eschatological conception involved by the story of Balder\nis that of the 'house of Hel'; and there can be no doubt that this\nconception itself is ancient, although the description of Hel in Gylf.\n34 is probably quite late.\n\n[591] The text does not say (as is stated in several works on Northern\nmythology) that Thor occupied the central position, but merely that he\nwas robbed after Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r and before Irpa. This is the only mention,\nso far as I am aware, of a cult figure of Thor in his car--a feature\nwhich occurs in H\u00fdmiskvi\u00f0a and Gylfaginning and may possibly have some\nethnological significance. It is somewhat remarkable that in the tract\nFr\u00e1 Forni\u00f3ti (in Hrafn's _Fornaldar S\u00f6gur_, II p. 6 f.) the ancestry of\nGu\u00f0brandr is traced to the giant Thrymr, Thor's antagonist.\n\n[592] Cults peculiar to certain families appear to have been common\namong the Lithuanians and kindred peoples; cf. Lasicius, _De diis\nSamogitarum_ (Respublica ... Poloniae, etc.; Leyden, 1642, p. 280):\n_sunt etiam quaedam ueteres nobilium familiae, quae peculiares colunt\ndeos, ut Mikutiana Simonaitem, Micheloviciana Sidzium, Schemietiana et\nKiesgaliana Ventis Rekicziovum, aliae alios_.\n\n[593] p. 66:\n\n _Et nunc ille ubi sit qui uulgo dicitur Othin\n armipotens, uno semper contentus ocello,\n dic mihi, Ruta, precor, usquam si conspicis illum.\n * * * * *\n si potero horrendum Frigge spectare maritum,\n quantumcunque albo clypeo sit tectus et altum\n flectat equum, Lethra nequaquam sospes abibit.\n fas est belligerum bello prosternere diuum._\n\n[594] Cf. Adam of Bremen, IV 26: _colunt et deos ex hominibus\nfactos_, etc. (with reference to the passage from the Vita Anscharii\nquoted on p. 255 f.). It is not clear whether Gr\u00edmr Kambann, the\ngreat-great-grandfather of Th\u00f3rsteinn S\u00f6lmundarson who settled in\nIceland (cf. Landn\u00e1mab\u00f3k, I 14), was deified; but the worship paid to\nhim is evidently regarded as something exceptional. Some scholars hold\nthat Bragi, the god of poetry, is no other than the poet Bragi Boddason.\n\n[595] _Proue(n)_; cf. Helmoldus, _Chron. Slavorum_, I 53, 70, 84.\n\n[596] I have discussed this subject (also Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r and Freyia) in detail\nin _The Origin of the English Nation_, chapters IX-XI.\n\n[597] I do not think that Aethelweard's substitution of _Balder_\nfor _Baeldaeg_ (the first part of which is certainly _b\u01e3l-_) in the\ngenealogy of King Aethelwulf (III 3) can be held to prove the existence\nof the cult of Balder in England. The theory that the word _baldor_,\n'prince,' arose out of the god's name is open to still more serious\nquestion.\n\n[598] Cf. Olrik, _Gefion_ (_Danske Studier_, 1910), p. 21 ff.\n\n[599] There is no reason for supposing that the cult of Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r was\nfirst introduced by Earl Haakon. In the Flateyiarb\u00f3k, p. 408, it is\nstated that she had been worshipped by successive rulers of the land.\nHer cult too was not unknown in Iceland; according to Har\u00f0ar Saga,\ncap. 19, Gr\u00edmkell, the son of a settler from Orkadal (to the south of\nTrondhjem), had a temple dedicated to her.\n\n[600] _The Cult of Othin_, p. 75 ff. Cf. R. M. Meyer, _Altgermanische\nReligionsgeschichte_, p. 474 ff.\n\n[601] _Irminsul ... quod Latine dicitur uniuersalis columna, quasi\nsustinens omnia_, Mon. Germ., II 676.\n\n[602] Jaff\u00e9, _Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum_, III 71 ff.: _neque\nenim contraria eis de ipsorum, quamuis falsorum, deorum genealogia\nastruere debes.... utrum autem adhuc generare deos deasque alios aliasque\nsuspicantur? uel, si iam non generant, quando uel cur cessauerunt a\nconcubitu et partu; si autem adhuc generant, infinitus iam deorum\neffectus numerus est, et quis tam inter tot tantosque potentior sit,\nincertum mortalibus est; et ualde cauendum, ne in potentiorem quis\noffendat._\n\n[603] This explanation would not hold of course if Fosite is to be\nidentified with Forseti the son of Balder. But the identification seems\nto me extremely problematical.\n\n[604] Cf. Bede, _H. E._, I 15: _Voden, de cuius stirpe multarum\nprouinciarum regium genus originem duxit_. From these genealogies and\nBp Daniel's letter (quoted above) it would seem that such compositions\n(including theogonies) were much in vogue among the heathen Teutonic\npeoples in the period immediately following the Heroic Age. It is to\nthe same period that I would ascribe the development of the theology\nof the Edda, though I do not mean to suggest that the poems which have\ncome down to us were composed then.\n\n[605] There is an unfortunate ambiguity about the history of the word\n_\u00c1ss_. In Old Norse it is applied both to Thor and Othin, as well\nas other gods, while _Aesir_ (pl.) denotes the gods collectively\nand _\u00c1sgar\u00f0r_ their home (quite distinct from Valhalla). In Gothic\nhowever the same word (pl. _ansis_) seems to have meant a dead hero\n(cf. p. 172, note). If this was its original meaning--a view somewhat\nfavoured by Skr. _asu_, Av. _anhu_, 'spirit,'--we must conclude that\nthe terms _\u00c1sgar\u00f0r_ and _Aesir_ (also _\u00c1ss_, as applied to Thor) have\nundergone a complete change of meaning in Old Norse. Such a change\ncould be explained satisfactorily by the (poetic) inclusion of \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 in one pantheon; but in that case the\ndoctrine of Valhalla, or something very much like it, must be of great\nantiquity. This explanation is perhaps favoured by the popular use of\n_Aasgaardsreia_ for the Wild Hunt in Norway.\n\n[606] Cap. quae de partibus Saxoniae constituta sunt, No. VII (Mon.\nGerm., Leg. I 49). Whether the practice was common I do not know.\nReferences to the cult of manes occur in the same Capitula, as well as\nin the Indiculus Superstitionum, etc.\n\n[607] Cremation is sometimes accompanied by a cult of the dead, e.g.\namong the heathen Prussians; cf. Matthias a Michov (Grynaeus, _Novus\nOrbis_, etc., Basel 1537, p. 520): _Habebant praeterea in syluis\npraefatis focos, in familias et domos distinctos, in quibus omnibus\ncharorum et familiarium cadauera cum equis, sellis et uestimentis\npotioribus incendebant. locabant etiam ad focos huiusmodi ex subere\nfacta sedilia, in quibus escas ex pasta in casei modum praeparatas\ndeponebant, medonemque focis infundebant, ea credulitate illusi quod\nmortuorum suorum animae quorum illic combusta fuerant corpora nocte\nuenirent escaque se exsatiarent._ Inhumation however was also practised\nby the same nation; cf. Erasmus Stella (Grynaeus, _op. cit._, p.\n582): _Statuit_ (sc. _Viduutus_) _et dies natalitios et funera pari\nmodo celebranda, mutuis scilicet commessationibus et compotationibus,\ntum lusu et cantu, absque moerore cum summa hilaritate et gaudio,\nutque alterius uitae spem prae se ferrent. illo saltem ostenderunt\nquod exutos spiritu armatos uestitosque ac magna supellectilis parte\ncircumposita humarunt. quo more usque nunc sepeliuntur_, etc. Both\nthese notices of course refer to a late period--the fifteenth century.\n\n[608] Cf. p. 397 f. We may refer also to the funeral of Sigur\u00f0r Hringr,\nas described in Arngrim's epitome of the lost Ski\u00f6ldunga Saga, cap.\n26 (Aarb\u00f8ger f. nord. Oldkynd., 1894, p. 132): _Hinc post acerrimam\npugnam ... Siguardus etiam male uulneratus est. qui, Alfsola funere\nallato, magnam nauim mortuorum cadaueribus oneratam solus uiuorum\nconscendit, seque et mortuam Alfsolam in puppi collocans nauim pice,\nbitumine et sulphure incendi iubet: atque sublatis uelis in altum,\nualidis a continente impellentibus uentis, proram dirigit, simulque\nmanus sibi uiolentas intulit; sese tot facinorum patratorem, tantorum\nregnorum possessorem, more maiorum suorum, regali pompa Odinum regem_\n_(id est inferos) inuisere malle quam inertis senectutis infirmitatem\nperpeti, alacri animo ad socios in littore antea relictos praefatus_,\netc.\n\n[609] In the glossaries the word is used to translate _Eurynis_,\n_Herinis_ (i.e. Erinys), _Tisifone_, _Allecto_, _Bellona_. The first\nthree cases occur in the Corpus glossary; hence the suggestion that the\nword _walcyrge_ is borrowed from Norse is inadmissible.\n\n[610] From the inscription of R\u00f6k it appears probable that the\nconception of Valkyries found in the Edda was familiar in the\nsouth-east of Sweden before the end of the ninth century. This is by no\nmeans the only point in which the same inscription bears witness to a\nhighly developed interest in antiquarian lore.\n\n[611] An interesting analogy is furnished by the Servian belief that\nsunstroke is due to arrows shot by Vile (cf. p. 317, note; and Krauss,\n_Slav. Volkforschungen_, p. 372 ff.).\n\n[612] I have not attempted to give a complete list of the mythical\nbeings mentioned in the records. In general we find the same classes of\nsuch beings as in the North--elves, dwarfs, giants (Ang.-Sax. _eoten_,\n_\u00feyrs_), etc.\n\n[613] It will be observed that here (as commonly in the Edda) Wodan's\ncharacter as god of the dead (slain) is entirely lost sight of.\n\n[614] We may note especially the two speeches of Coifi, the chief\npriest: _Nihil omnino uirtutis habet, nihil utilitatis religio illa\nquam hucusque tenuimus.... Iam olim intellexeram nihil esse quod\ncolebamus; quia uidelicet quanto studiosius in eo cultu quaerebam,\ntanto minus inueniebam._\n\n[615] _Ita haec uita hominum ad modicum apparet; quid autem sequatur,\nquidue praecesserit, prorsus ignoramus._\n\n[616] Artemis in the Homeric poems seems to be chiefly a women's deity\n(cf. Od. XX 59 ff.). The same may have been the case with Gefion;\ncf. Gylfaginning, cap. 35: \"She is a maiden, and those who die in\nmaidenhood serve her.\"\n\n[617] In origin however Freyia, the daughter of Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r (Nerthus),\ncorresponds probably rather to Persephone, the daughter of Demeter; cf.\np. 400.\n\n[618] Even beings such as these are sometimes affiliated to Zeus; cf.\nIl. VI 420.\n\n[619] So also with the ceremonial drinkings, which in both sets of\nrecords form so prominent a feature in the life of human and divine\ncommunities alike. Among the Greeks the libation corresponds to the\nNorthern 'toast' (_full_) in honour of the gods. A good example may be\nfound in Saga H\u00e1konar G\u00f3\u00f0a, cap. 16.\n\n[620] Reference may be made to the boar which was sacrificed to Frey\n(or Freyia) in Hervarar Saga, cap. 10, and on which oaths were sworn.\nIt is not made clear however what was done with the body of the boar.\n\n[621] With the punishment of perjurers by the Erinyes in Il. XIX 259\nf. we may compare what is said regarding the fate of such persons in\nV\u00f6lusp\u00e1, str. 39.\n\n[622] Reference may be made to Procopius' account of the Heruli (cf.\np. 411) and more especially to the stories of Ibn Dustah and Ibn\nFadhlan, quoted by Thomsen, _The Relations between Ancient Russia\nand Scandinavia_, etc., pp. 30 f., 34. Native records preserve only\nsomewhat vague traditions relating to such a custom; cf. _The Cult of\nOthin_, p. 41 f.\n\n[623] Cf. especially Ridgeway, _The Early Age of Greece_, p. 512 ff.\n\n[624] Reference may be made to the story of Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn and\nSigur\u00f0r Hringr; cf. _The Cult of Othin_, p. 22 f.\n\n[625] The existence of a tradition to this effect is perhaps implied by\nAristotle, _Meteorolog._, I 14, 21 f.; cf. p. 437, note.\n\n[626] In addition to the examples cited by Prof. Ridgeway we may refer\nto the account of the Livonians given by Bartholomaeus Anglicus, _De\nProprietatibus Rerum_, XV 88: _mortuorum cadauera tumulo non tradebant,\nsed populus facto rogo maximo usque ad cineres comburebat. post mortem\nautem suos amicos nouis uestibus uestiebant et eis pro uiatico oues et\nboues et alia animantia exhibebant. seruos etiam et ancillas cum rebus\naliis ipsis assignantes una cum mortuo et rebus aliis incendebant,\ncredentes sic incensos ad quandam uiuorum regionem feliciter pertingere\net ibidem cum pecorum et seruorum sic ob gratiam domini combustorum\nmultitudine felicitatis et uitae temporalis patriam inuenire_. This\nrecord dates from the thirteenth century (probably about 1260); so that\nNorthern influence is not impossible.\n\n[627] This contrast is all the more noteworthy in view of the fact\nthat the two chief 'heroic' deities, Woden (Othin) and Zeus, are of\nessentially different origin. The affinities of the former lie rather\nwith Hades--not as a chthonic being, properly speaking, but as lord of\nthe spirit world.\n\n[628] The characterisation of the home of Hades resembles rather\nthat of the Northern abode of Hel (cf. p. 400, note). There can be\nlittle doubt that the latter conception is founded upon a belief\nof considerable antiquity, though, except in the North, all our\ninformation relating to it comes from sources affected by Christian\ninfluence. From references in early poetry, as well as from popular\nbelief in later times, it seems probable that the early Teutonic\nconception of Hell (Goth. _halja_, etc.) involved something more than\na survival of the soul in or about the place of sepulture, though\nthere is nothing to show that it was identical with Valhalla. For the\npersonification of Hell definite evidence is wanting; yet note should\nbe taken of the fact that such beings as Holda and Berhta (like Freyia\nand Gefion) were connected with the spirit world.\n\n\n\n\nNOTE VIII. THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE\nCELTIC AND SLAVONIC HEROIC AGES.\n\n\nIn the last three chapters we have confined our attention almost\nexclusively to the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages. It is not to be\noverlooked however that similar phenomena occur elsewhere. The closest\nand most interesting parallels, at least in Europe, are probably to be\nfound in the history of the ancient Gauls.\n\nIt has been mentioned above that Gaulish literature has entirely\nperished. We are dependent therefore for our information upon a few\nscattered references in the works of Greek and Roman writers. These\nhowever are sufficient to show that the Gauls possessed a well-known\nand influential class of professional minstrels (\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9), whose chief\noccupation seems to have been the composition of heroic poetry[629].\nLike the minstrels of the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages these persons\nwere attached to the courts of kings, and their poems dealt with the\npraises of living princes as well as with the deeds of heroes of the\npast[630]. With the disappearance of kingship, early in the first\ncentury (B.C.), their standing seems to have been impaired. At all\nevents they are never mentioned by Caesar, who has so much to say about\nthe Druids.\n\nIt is probable therefore that by this time what may be termed the\nGaulish Heroic Age was already at an end. How long it had lasted we\ncannot tell, since all the stories have perished. We may certainly note\nhowever that the accounts of Gaulish life which have come down to us\nfrom the time before the nation became Romanised show a most striking\nresemblance to the conditions described in Teutonic and Greek heroic\npoetry. The longest of these accounts is the one given by Diodoros\n(V 26 ff.), where their customs are described with a considerable\namount of detail. The picture which he draws of their methods of\nfighting, their love of boasting[631], their habits in entertaining\nstrangers[632] and many other particulars furnishes a parallel to\nHomeric life closer perhaps than may be found even in Anglo-Saxon\npoetry.\n\nThe principle of personal allegiance seems to have been developed among\nthe Gauls to a very high degree, although our information dates chiefly\nfrom times when kingship had almost entirely disappeared. We have\nscarcely sufficient evidence for determining whether the development\nof this principle had been accompanied by a relaxation of the bonds\nof kindred. But Caesar's statement (_Gall._, VI 11) regarding the\nuniversal prevalence of party spirit points in this direction[633]; and\nit is perhaps worth noting that attempts were made upon the lives of\nmore than one of the princes who had submitted to him. There is reason\nfor suspecting that among the Celtic peoples, as among the Teutonic,\nthe organisation of the kindred had undergone a change, probably at\nno very remote period. The Picts adhered to succession in the female\nline, at all events in the royal family, down to the eighth century;\nand there are said to be traces of the same type of succession in\nIreland. It is commonly assumed that the Pictish succession was a\npre-Celtic institution; but no evidence worth consideration has been\nadduced in favour of this view. We need not doubt the existence of\npre-Celtic inhabitants in Scotland. But the same remark applies to the\nrest of the British Isles and at least a considerable part of Gaul,\nand I see no reason why in Scotland alone (or Scotland and Ireland) so\nimportant a change should have been taken over from the aborigines. In\nGaul succession certainly passed in the male line in the first century\n(B.C.). But in the earliest Gaulish tradition of which we have record\nthe title to sovereignty seems to go, as among the Picts, to the sons\nof the king's sister[634].\n\nThe political organisation of the Gauls appears to have been similar\nto that of the Teutonic peoples, though kingship was dying out in\nthe first century. We find a considerable number of comparatively\nsmall nations (_ciuitates_), each of which apparently possessed a\nroyal family of its own. From time to time one of these acquired a\nposition of supremacy over all or many of the others. Sometimes too\nsections of the same nation appear in widely different regions. Thus\nwe find Senones and Lingones both in Gaul and Italy, Boii in Bavaria\n(Bohemia) and Italy, Volcae Tectosages in Germany and the south of\nGaul--Tectosages also in Galatia. There is little doubt that in such\ncases one of these sections is an offshoot from the other and owes its\norigin to some military expedition.\n\nIn regard to religion Caesar (_ib._, VI 21) draws a striking contrast\nbetween the Gauls and the Germans, though his account of the latter in\nthis respect will not hold good for the Heroic Age. Gaulish religion\nwas polytheistic and highly anthropomorphic; it would seem also that\nthe gods were regarded as forming an organised community. The method\nemployed in the disposal of the dead was cremation; and here too this\npractice was associated with a vivid conception of immortality. In\nall these respects Gaulish religion seems to have differed little\nfrom the types which we find in the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages,\nalthough apparently the belief in immortality largely took the form of\nmetempsychosis. Only in one particular can we detect a really important\ndifference between Gaulish religion and the others, namely in the\ninfluence of the priesthood. This feature however seems to have been\npeculiar to Gaul itself and Britain; at all events we hear nothing of\nDruids elsewhere. Indeed according to Caesar (VI 13) the institution\nwas believed to have originated in Britain; and it is by no means\nimpossible that some of its characteristic features may have developed\nin this country. More than this we cannot safely say, since there is\nan obvious--and probably by no means superficial--resemblance between\nDruidism and the priesthood of the Prussians and Lithuanians.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn previous Notes (p. 101 ff.) we spoke of two other Heroic Ages--those\nof the Bosnian Mohammedans, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,\nand of the Cumbrian Welsh, about a thousand years earlier. In Note VII\nwe discussed briefly one of the leading incidents in the (Christian)\nServian Heroic Age, of the fourteenth century. In all these cases the\nquestion of religion is better left out of account; for though the form\ntaken by Christianity or Mohammedanism was doubtless influenced to some\nextent by national characteristics, the two religions were essentially\nof foreign origin.\n\nAmong the Bosnians however the influence of Mohammedanism affected also\nthe organisation of society, while the government was in the hands of\npashas sent from Constantinople. On the whole the conditions appear to\nhave little in common with those of the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages.\nEven the principle of personal allegiance is not much in evidence.\n\nOn the other hand this principle is very prominent in the Christian\nServian poems, at all events in those which deal with the battle of\nKossovo. It is exemplified both in the relations of squires (such\nas Vaistina) with their lords and in those of the latter with the\nking. In the poem on the banquet (Karad\u017ei\u0107, II 50 iii), which we have\ndiscussed above (p. 315), it is to this principle alone that Lazar\nappeals, when he reproaches Milo\u0161 for his suspected disloyalty; and\nthough the latter in his reply does mention that he intends to die for\nthe Christian faith, he too evidently regards loyalty to his king as\nhis primary duty. My knowledge of this subject is unfortunately not\nsufficient to enable me to form an opinion as to whether the growth\nof the bond of allegiance was accompanied by a relaxation of the\nbonds of kinship. In the lower ranks of society however the kindred\nhas preserved down to the present time perhaps greater vitality\namong the Servians than in any other European nation. The type of\ngovernment which we find prevailing in the fourteenth century is far\nremoved from that democratic system which Procopius (_Goth._, III 14)\nascribes to the Slavs some six centuries previously. The governors whom\nDu\u0161an appointed in various parts of his dominions became practically\nindependent princes after his death, although their principalities\nrested apparently on no national basis. Both in Servia proper and\nelsewhere the control of affairs seems to have been very largely in the\nhands of the royal family.\n\nFor the Cumbrian Heroic Age our information is sadly deficient. The\nevidence of the poems leaves no doubt as to the potency of the force of\npersonal allegiance. With regard to the kindred I know of no evidence,\nunless we take account of the Welsh laws, which belong to a different\nregion and to a period several centuries later. The kingdoms seem to\nhave been fairly numerous, and there is nothing to show that their\norganisation differed much from that of Teutonic kingdoms of the Heroic\nAge. Whether they rested on any national basis we cannot tell; but it\nis to be noted that practically all their territories had once been\nincluded within the Roman frontiers[635].\n\nBoth these cases then appear to show a number of the features which\ncharacterise the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages, though scarcely to\nthe same degree as is the case with the civilisation of the ancient\nGauls. Analogies may also be found in the French and Russian Heroic\nAges; but I am not aware that either of these presents any remarkable\ncharacteristics which do not occur in one or other of those with which\nwe have dealt. On the other hand I have no doubt that many interesting\nfeatures are to be found in the Irish Heroic Age (or rather perhaps\nHeroic Ages[636]). This subject however is beset with such extreme\ndifficulties of every kind that I dare not touch it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[629] Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, XV 9. 8 (probably from Timagenes):\n_et Bardi quidem fortia uirorum illustrium facta heroicis composita\nuersibus cum dulcibus lyrae modulis cantitarunt_. Cf. also Diodoros, V\n31; Strabo, IV 4. 4; Lucan, Phars. I 447 ff.\n\n[630] Cf. Athenaios, VI 49 (quoting Poseidonios): \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8' \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd. \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f31 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u0392\u03ac\u03c1\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4' \u1fa0\u03b4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Reference may also be made to the story of Luernios, king\nof the Allobroges, and the minstrel who arrived too late (_ib._, IV\n37). Cf. also Appian, _Celtice_, \u00a7 12 (describing the arrival of an\nenvoy sent by Bitoitos, the father of Luernios): \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1\n\u03b5\u1f35\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u0392\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4' \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u03cc\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03b4\u1f74\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n[631] \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ce\u03b8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ac\u03c1\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (V 29).\n\n[632] \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4' \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f40\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4' \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.... \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c9\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd (_ib._ 28).\n\n[633] We may compare also what is said (_ib._ I 20) of the relations of\nDiuiciacus and Dumnorix. The latter had a large comitatus of his own:\n_magnum numerum equitatus suo sumptu semper alere et circum se habere_\n(I 18).\n\n[634] Cf. Livy, V 34.\n\n[635] The rise of the Cumbrian kingdoms presents a difficulty which\nhistorians do not seem to me to have sufficiently realised. During the\nfourth and fifth centuries the northern parts of the province were\nrepeatedly menaced and ravaged by Pictish invaders. Yet after the fifth\ncentury we hear practically nothing more of Picts in the south of\nScotland (except in Galloway). On the other hand it was in this region\nthat the Britons offered the most determined resistance to the English.\nIn the latter part of the sixth century Urien is said (_Hist. Br._, \u00a7\n63) to have besieged them on one occasion in Lindisfarne (_Metcaud_);\nand in Strathclyde the Britons maintained their independence, except\nfor one or two brief intervals, until long after the disappearance\nof the Northumbrian kingdom. It is often assumed, though on somewhat\nslender grounds, that the Britons held only the south-west of Scotland\nand that the south-east (Lothian, etc.) was Pictish before the English\nconquest. But this hypothesis does not get rid of the difficulties; for\nit is from _Manau Guotodin_, a district always regarded as Pictish,\nthat Cunedda is said to have come (_ib._, \u00a7 62). I suspect that the\ndistinction between Picts and Britons was not so rigid as is commonly\nsupposed. Unfortunately Celtic scholars have not yet been able to come\nto any agreement as to the character of the Pictish language. Some hold\nthat it was British (Brythonic), others Gaelic (Goidelic), others again\nnon-Celtic. Possibly all these views may contain a certain amount of\ntruth. At all events it seems to me quite incredible that Gaelic was\nnot introduced into Scotland before the sixth century. All indications\nappear to me to favour the view that this language belonged to a wave\nof Celtic invasion earlier than the British. Yet I see no objection to\nsupposing that in pre-Roman times the true (Gaelic) Picts--who probably\nincluded a non-Celtic substratum--may have been overlaid in part by a\nBritish element. If so, it is far from improbable that the south of\nScotland in its turn received a 'Pictish' element, when that district\nwas abandoned by the Romans. A mixed population of this kind would\nreadily enough coalesce with the native (British) inhabitants.\n\n[636] So also in the Heroic Ages of non-European peoples. Important\nparallels are certainly furnished by Sanskrit epic poetry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX\n\nTHE CAUSES AND ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OF THE HEROIC AGE\n\n\nIn the course of the last three chapters we have observed many\nremarkable resemblances between the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages--in\nsocial organisation, in the forms of government and in religious\nconceptions. Further we have seen that in the former case the testimony\nof the poems is fully substantiated by contemporary historical\nauthorities. In the latter case we possess no evidence which affords us\nground for doubting that the poems give an equally faithful reflection\nof conditions and ideas which prevailed in real life. Our next and\nfinal object is to enquire into the nature of the causes to which the\ncommon characteristics of the two Heroic Ages are due.\n\nI do not think that any one will seriously suggest the possibility\nof a historical connection between the two Heroic Ages, separated as\nthey are from one another by an interval of some fourteen or fifteen\ncenturies. It is perhaps conceivable that one or other of the common\nelements which we have noted may have originated in Greece and worked\nits way round until it appears after so long a lapse of time in the\nnorth of Europe[637]. But for the phenomena as a whole any such\nexplanation is incredible.\n\nAnother explanation is suggested by the fact that the Greek and\nTeutonic peoples are ultimately related, at least linguistically--both\nbeing members of the Indo-European family. It is only reasonable\ntherefore to expect that they may have inherited common\ncharacteristics. But this explanation does not in itself account for\nthe fact that the Heroic Age begins in one case some fourteen or\nfifteen centuries after the other. Moreover the Heroic Age of the\nSouthern Slavs begins about a thousand years later than that of the\nTeutonic peoples, while we have no evidence that the Lithuanians ever\nhad a Heroic Age. Yet both of these equally belong to the Indo-European\nlinguistic family.\n\nAgain it may be suggested that the causes responsible for the Heroic\nAge are to be found not so much in ethnical affinity as in the\npossession of a similar stage of culture. The term 'Early Iron Age' is\ncustomarily applied to both the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages. But\nthis common application of the term is misleading. In the Greek Heroic\nAge the use of iron, at all events for weapons, seems to have been only\nbeginning, whereas the Teutonic peoples had been using iron weapons for\nat least seven or eight centuries before their Heroic Age. Moreover\nboth the Lithuanians and the Southern Slavs have passed through similar\nstages of culture--in the latter case many centuries before the first\nServian Heroic Age.\n\nThe suggestions put forward above may doubtless help to account for\ncertain features in both the Teutonic and the Greek Heroic Ages;\nbut it cannot be contended that they are capable, whether singly or\ncollectively, of explaining the phenomena as a whole. If we are to\nobtain a more satisfactory explanation we shall do well in the first\nplace to give our attention to the outstanding characteristics of that\nperiod of history which coincides with the Teutonic Heroic Age.\n\nThis period was a momentous time in Teutonic history. In the first\nplace it saw the conversion of most of the Continental peoples to\nChristianity. But probably no one will suggest that the Heroic Age was\nan outcome of this change. On the other hand the same period witnessed\nthe fall of the Western Empire and the occupation of almost all its\nterritories by Teutonic peoples. The effect of these movements must\nhave been enormous, and in them we may reasonably expect to find at\nleast one of the chief causes of the phenomena which we are discussing.\nAt the same time it is to be remembered that the Vandals and Visigoths,\nwho penetrated farthest into the empire, do not figure in stories of\nthe Heroic Age, while even the Franks are less conspicuous than the\nDanes, who took no part in these movements.\n\nIn the case of the Greek Heroic Age we have unfortunately to depend\nupon inferences, since no historical evidence is obtainable. Not many\nyears ago Prof. Ridgeway[638] advanced a very interesting theory, which\nhas greatly influenced subsequent opinion, at least in this country.\nThis theory, stated briefly, is to the effect that the Achaeans were a\npeople from Central Europe who had made their way into Greece by way\nof Epeiros, not very long before the Heroic Age, and conquered the\nindigenous inhabitants, whom he calls Pelasgians. In support of this\nview he has brought forward a large number of arguments relating to\nphysical characteristics, habits, dress, armour, social organisation,\nreligion, funeral customs, etc., in which he shows that the affinities\nof the Homeric Achaeans lie with the Celtic peoples rather than with\nthe earlier inhabitants of Greece.\n\nIt is impossible here to enter into a detailed discussion of Prof.\nRidgeway's theory. The first objection which may be raised against it\nlies in the absence of traditional evidence for the great movement\nof population which it involves--evidence such as we possess for the\nDorian conquest and the Ionic migration. The force of this objection\ndepends of course a good deal upon what may be called details, e.g. the\ndate of the invasion, the numerical strength of the invaders and the\nmethod by which the conquest was effected. A more serious objection\nis perhaps to be found in the conditions postulated by Prof. Ridgeway\nfor Central Europe. Probably few who have given much attention to the\nsubject will be inclined to dispute that the affinities of Homeric\ncivilisation lie in many respects with that of the Celtic peoples,\nrather than with the earlier civilisation of the Aegean. But all\nthe evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that among the Celtic\npeoples this type of civilisation belongs to a much later period. There\nis nothing to show that even at Hallstatt and elsewhere in the Eastern\nAlps the earliest use of iron[639] goes back to the beginning of the\nfirst millennium, and it is extremely doubtful whether these deposits\nare of Celtic origin[640]. In order to prove that Homeric civilisation\ncame from Central Europe evidence must be adduced showing that the\nchronology usually accepted by archaeologists is mistaken and that a\ncivilisation of the same type prevailed in that region far back in the\nsecond millennium. Until such evidence is forthcoming it appears more\nprobable that both the civilisation of Central and Western Europe and\nthe non-Mycenean elements in Homeric civilisation have radiated from a\ncommon centre, the true home of which has not yet been discovered.\n\nThese considerations however must not be allowed to obscure the fact\nthat Prof. Ridgeway's observations have thrown light on a number of\nserious difficulties in early Greek history. In the first place he has\nrightly insisted upon a recognition of the great differences noticeable\nbetween Homeric and Mycenean civilisation--differences which can hardly\nbe accounted for except by some such explanation as that which he has\nbrought forward. It is now admitted by the majority of scholars that\nthe Aegean civilisation cannot have originated with the Achaeans; but\nthere is still great difference of opinion as to the nature of its\nrelations with this people. Some hold that the prehistoric civilisation\nof Crete was non-Achaean--and indeed non-Greek--until its fall, and yet\nbelieve that Mycenae and the other cities of the mainland were always\nAchaean. Others again hold that the later remains both on the mainland\nand in Crete are Achaean, while the earlier ones, at all events in\nCrete, were non-Achaean. But neither of these theories accounts for\nthe differences between Mycenean and Homeric civilisation[641]. Both\nalike involve the assumption that the latter is a reflection of the\nconditions of a later age--an assumption which, as we have seen, can\nscarcely be reconciled with the evidence of the poems on the use of the\nmetals and other matters discussed above.\n\nSecondly, Prof. Ridgeway has pointed out the groundlessness of the\nprevalent hypothesis that the Achaeans were the first Greek-speaking\ninhabitants of Greece. He has rightly insisted on the antiquity of the\nArcadians and Athenians, together with certain other peoples, Ionians\nand Cypriotes, who had emigrated from Greece, and at the same time\ncalled attention to the fact--which is commonly overlooked--that none\nof these peoples claimed to be of Achaean origin[642]. The Achaean\ncommunities of historical times used dialects of the West Greek type,\nas distinct from Ionic or Arcadian as they are from Aeolic, and we\nhave no evidence that they ever spoke a different type of language.\nOn this subject however enough has been said above (p. 281 ff.). The\nname 'Pelasgian,' which Prof. Ridgeway applies to the earlier Greek\ninhabitants, seems to me to be open to objection; yet the evidence of\nHerodotus can be adduced in its favour.\n\nThirdly, when Prof. Ridgeway holds that the route by which the\nAchaeans made their way southwards was through Epeiros he has in\nhis favour an argument of considerable weight in the antiquity and\nimportance of the sanctuary at Dodona, which in historical times lay\non the extreme edge of the Greek world. But, apart from this, the\nlinguistic geography of Greece is unintelligible to me unless dialects\nof the Arcadian and Ionic types were once spoken over a much larger\narea in Greece proper than that in which we find them in historical\ntimes. All indications seem to point to the region west of Pindos\nas the home of that West Greek group to which the Achaean dialects\nbelong[643].\n\nLastly it must be regarded as improbable that Epeiros was solely\nresponsible for those elements in Homeric or Achaean civilisation\nwhich differentiate it from that of the Mycenean age and at the same\ntime connect it with the civilisations of Central and Western Europe.\nIn historical times this country had passed almost entirely into the\npossession of barbarian peoples owing to pressure from the north,\nand we have no reason for supposing that this process was new. It is\ncommonly held that in the period preceding the Heroic Age[644] there\nhad been great movements of population from the Balkan peninsula into\nthe north-west of Asia Minor--a process which likewise was repeated\nin later times. What little evidence we have for the civilisation of\nthese peoples does not suggest any great difference between their\ncivilisation and that of the Homeric Greeks. The Homeric poems in\nparticular seem to draw little or no distinction in this respect\nbetween the Achaeans on the one hand and the Trojans and their allies\non the other. Hence, whatever may be our attitude to the arguments\nbased on physical characteristics, etc., on which Prof. Ridgeway lays\nso much weight, we cannot, I think, reasonably regard it as improbable\nthat Epeiros had long been affected by movements from the same quarter.\nIndeed the existence of considerable 'Illyrian' or semi-Illyrian\npopulations in Italy, which certainly date from prehistoric times,\nshows that these movements took a south-westerly, as well as a\nsouth-easterly, course. A common centre of disturbance may be found in\nthe highlands of Albania and Upper Macedonia, though I do not mean to\ndeny that this area itself may have been affected by movements from\nmore northern regions.\n\nIt may be that in the volumes of his work which have still to appear\nProf. Ridgeway will be able to bring forward some stronger evidence\nin favour of the northern origin of the Achaeans. But even with\nthe reservations expressed above it will be seen that this theory\nprovides a parallel on a small scale to those historical movements\nwhich characterised the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples. And some\nsuch explanation is certainly required, even apart from the Homeric\npoems, in order to account for the archaeological phenomena and the\nethnic and linguistic geography of Greece in the historical period.\nIt is Prof. Ridgeway's great service to have pointed out that the\n'Homeric question' is only a part of a much greater problem. Towards\nthe solution of this problem little progress can be made by hypotheses\nlike those which we have discussed in Chapters XIII and XIV--according\nto which one hero is derived from a god or 'tribal personification,'\nwhile another is a fictitious character which a credulous public has\ncome to regard as historical. Even in the best of cases it is only the\nsurface of the problem which can be touched by such investigations.\nProf. Ridgeway has shown that the real problem which lies behind the\nHomeric poems is not, as has been said, the development of Greek heroic\ntradition ('die Entwickelung der griechischen Heldensage') but the\ncharacter and origin of the Greek Heroic Age. This in its turn must\nbe regarded as only one of a series of phenomena which we meet with\namong various peoples and at various periods of the world's history.\nIn short the real problem presented by the Homeric poems is one not of\nliterature but of anthropology.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have seen that the Teutonic Heroic Age was a time of great national\nmovements and that something of the same kind appears to have taken\nplace in or shortly before the Greek Heroic Age. But it is obvious\nenough that such movements in themselves will not account for the\ncommon characteristics of the two Heroic Ages which we have discussed\nin the last three chapters. In order to obtain an explanation of these\nphenomena we shall have to take the evidence of other Heroic Ages into\nconsideration.\n\nIn the course of our discussion we have had occasion to refer to four\nother Heroic Ages, namely those of the Mohammedan and the Christian\nServians, the Cumbrian Welsh and the ancient Gauls. Taking account of\nthese and all other similar cases of which I have any knowledge I am\nnot clear that the essential conditions requisite for a Heroic Age\nneed involve more than may conveniently be summed up in the phrase\n'Mars and the Muses.' It is to poetry that we owe the preservation\nof the stories--and indeed much more than this; for wherever we have\nany evidence as to its character heroic poetry seems to have aimed at\nsomething more than a mere record of facts. Indeed there can be little\ndoubt that it exercised a considerable influence upon the spirit of the\ntimes.\n\nThe part played by 'Mars' is perhaps not so obvious; for it is\nclear from Beowulf and the Odyssey that a state of actual war is\nnot a necessary condition either for heroic society or even for the\nformation of a heroic story. Yet I cannot call to mind a single story\nin which the hero, i.e. the leading sympathetic character, is not\ndistinguished for personal bravery; and usually the main action of the\nstory turns upon a situation in which opportunity is given for the\ndisplay of this quality. It appears to me incredible that the types of\ncharacter most prominent in all these forms of heroic poetry could have\nflourished in times of profound international peace and settled social\nconditions[645]. Indeed I cannot but think that under such conditions\nmost of our heroes would sooner or later have found themselves in\nprison.\n\nOn the whole warfare is the state of affairs most commonly involved in\nheroic stories. It is a fact worth noting however that this warfare\nalmost invariably takes the form of hand-to-hand fighting and very\nfrequently that of a series of single combats. The national aspect\nof war is seldom brought into much prominence. With the Teutonic and\nGreek evidence on this subject we have already dealt (pp. 329 f., 339\nff.); and we may perhaps remark that all the other Heroic Ages ended in\nperiods of failure or even disaster. In the Welsh and Servian Heroic\nAges the warfare certainly has a religious side; but this aspect is not\nalways so prominent in the poems as one might have expected. We know\ntoo from historical sources that Welsh princes often fought in alliance\nwith the heathen English during the first part of the seventh century.\nSimilar events were by no means unknown in Servian history. The chief\nhero of the Southern Slavs, Kraljevi\u0107 Marko, was in alliance with the\nTurks, if he did not actually fight on their side at the battle of\nKossovo.\n\nThe triumphs for which the heroes of heroic poetry hope and for\nwhich they are celebrated in the poems are primarily of a personal\ncharacter and gained by personal prowess, even in times of national\nwar; and all the stories alike are permeated by the spirit of personal\nadventure. Sometimes we find this spirit indulged with a reckless\ndisregard of consequences, as when Odysseus seeks out the Cyclops in\nhis cave[646], or when the Beg Ljubovi\u0107 visits the white city of Zara.\nNot unfrequently of course the object with which such adventures are\nundertaken is the acquisition of wealth. But wealth itself is desired\nnot so much in order to ensure a life of comfort or even a position\nof influence, but rather for the sake of display--that the hero may\nbe able to outshine all his rivals in splendour. Desire of personal\nglory--often coupled with love of adventure for its own sake--appears\nto be the leading motive in all the various types of heroic poetry\nwhich we have considered.\n\nNow it has often been remarked that the savage is in many respects like\na child. We are certainly not justified in describing the people of any\nof the Heroic Ages treated above as savages; but it would be an equally\ngreat error to regard their civilisation, even in the best case,\nas mature. And in this respect I cannot help thinking that modern\nhistorians have tended to fall into a mistake similar to that which has\nsometimes been made by European governors of savage or semi-civilised\ncommunities. It is a mistake for which our historical authorities\nthemselves are doubtless partly responsible; for we need not suppose\nthat Greeks or Romans of the past, whether scholars or statesmen,\nwere better able to understand the motives of heroic societies than\nare similar persons in our own days. The qualities exhibited by these\nsocieties, virtues and defects alike, are clearly those of adolescence.\nFurther, we may note in this connection that the evidence of history\ngives us no ground for supposing that the 'heroic' spirit is an innate\nand permanent characteristic of certain peoples. It may be possible to\npoint to communities in which the Heroic Age has persisted for many\ncenturies, just as numerous peoples in different parts of the world\nhave remained in a state of 'infancy' or savagery down to the present\ntime. In Europe however the Heroic Age has been a transient phase.\nThe sequel has sometimes been disastrous, sometimes comparatively\nprosperous; but in every case the ideas which animated the Heroic Age\nhave ceased to retain their hold.\n\nThus far we have been seeking to find characteristics common to\nvarious Heroic Ages. It will be convenient here to refer briefly to\nthe conclusions at which we arrived in the last three chapters. We saw\n(p. 365) that in regard to social organisation the outstanding feature\nboth of the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages was the weakening of the\nties of kindred and the growth of the bond of allegiance. In political\norganisation (p. 390 f.) the chief feature of both periods was the\ndevelopment of an irresponsible type of kingship resting upon military\nprestige, the formation of kingdoms with no national basis and the\ngrowth of relations between one kingdom and another. In religion (p.\n425) the predominant characteristic in both cases was the subordination\nof chthonic and tribal cults to the worship of a number of universally\nrecognised and highly anthropomorphic deities, together with the belief\nin a common and distant land of souls. Lastly, we observed (in Note\nVIII) that the Gaulish Heroic Age appears to have possessed almost all\nthe same characteristics, while in regard to social and political\norganisation analogies are also to be found in the Heroic Ages of the\nCumbrian Welsh and the Christian Servians, though hardly--or only to a\nvery slight extent--in that of the Mohammedan Servians.\n\nNow it deserves to be remarked that these characteristics are in no\nsense primitive. In social organisation the distinguishing feature\nof the Heroic Age is in the nature of a revolt or emancipation from\nthose tribal obligations and ideas by which the society of primitive\npeoples is everywhere governed. The same remark applies in principle to\npolitical organisation; the princes of the Heroic Age appear to have\nfreed themselves to a large extent from any public control on the part\nof the tribe or community. The changes which we have noted in religion\nhave a similar tendency. Tribal ideas give way to universalism both\nin the cult of higher powers and in the conception of immortality;\nand in both the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages these changes seem\nto be associated with a weakening in the force of religion. Briefly\nexpressed, the characteristic feature of both periods is emancipation,\nsocial, political and religious, from the bonds of tribal law.\n\nIt will be seen that the emancipation of which we are speaking is\npartly of an intellectual character. This applies both to religion and\nto those ideas which govern social relations. On the other hand it is\nalso partly in the nature of a freedom from outside control, both in\nsocial relations and in government. The force formerly exercised by\nthe kindred is now largely transferred to the comitatus, a body of\nchosen adherents pledged to personal loyalty to their chief. So also in\ngovernment the council of the tribe or community has come to be nothing\nmore than a comitatus or court. The result of the change is that the\nman who possesses a comitatus becomes largely free from the control\nof his kindred, while the chief similarly becomes free from control\nwithin his community. In both cases the only opposition that he now has\nto fear is from rivals who desire to take his place or from persons\noutside the kindred or community and in a similar position to himself.\nCertainly this freedom applies only to the case of kings or princes\nwith followings of their own. But there is no reason for supposing that\nintellectual emancipation made much headway except among such persons\nand their entourages.\n\nWe have seen above that the characteristics of Heroic Ages in\ngeneral are those neither of infancy nor of maturity--that the\ntypical man of the Heroic Age is to be compared rather with a youth.\nThe characteristics which we are now discussing are by no means\ninconsistent with such a view, though clearly they will not hold good\nfor adolescence in general. For a true analogy we must turn to the\ncase of a youth who has outgrown both the ideas and the control of his\nparents--such a case as may be found among the sons of unsophisticated\nparents, who through outside influence, at school or elsewhere, have\nacquired knowledge which places them in a position of superiority to\ntheir surroundings.\n\nIf we examine the history of the Teutonic Heroic Age we shall see that\nthis analogy holds good both for individual princes and for the class\nas a whole. From the first century to the fifth--we may take the cases\nof Italicus the son of Flavus and of Theodric the Ostrogoth--it was\ncustomary for the Romans to demand the youthful sons of Teutonic kings\nas hostages. That the accession of such persons to power in later life\nwould open up a channel for the introduction of foreign ideas needs\nprobably no demonstration. But this was doubtless only one of a number\nof such channels. There is scarcely a single considerable deposit of\nantiquities dating from the first four centuries, not only in the south\nand west of Germany but even in Denmark and other Baltic lands, which\ndoes not contain a large proportion of Roman[647] articles. Among such\narticles we may mention coins, works of art (glass vases, statuettes,\netc.) and, perhaps above all, armour and weapons. We may refer in\nparticular to the Roman helmets and the large number of Roman swords\nand shield-bosses found in deposits on the east side of the province\nof Slesvig--a district remote from the Roman frontiers. The linguistic\nevidence too is in full agreement with that of the antiquities. Of\nthe immense number of Latin loan-words which found their way into the\nTeutonic languages it is probable that quite a considerable proportion\nwere borrowed in or before the Heroic Age.\n\nAmong the various channels through which Roman goods and Roman\ninfluence found entry into the Teutonic world we may mention trade,\npresents and subsidies, and booty gained by wars and piratical raids.\nBut the most potent influence of all perhaps was the Roman practice\nof employing Teutonic mercenary soldiers--of which we hear both from\ninscriptions and literary works. This practice had begun as early as\nthe first century, and it is noteworthy that those German princes who\ngave the Romans most trouble, such as Arminius and Civilis, were men\nwho had previously served with their own armies. In the early part\nof the Heroic Age it appears that a very considerable proportion not\nonly of the troops but also of the generals in the imperial service\nwere of Teutonic nationality. Such forces were contributed largely by\ncommunities which had settled within the boundaries of the empire,\nsuch as the Goths and Vandals in the basin of the Danube and those\nsmaller communities that we hear of incidentally in the east of Gaul.\nBut it was by no means only from these dependent or semi-dependent\nprincipalities that the auxiliary troops were drawn. In the reigns\nof Constantius and Valentinian I the Roman army in Britain contained\ntroops of Heruli--a nation which probably occupied the basin of the\nElbe and had never been under Roman sovereignty, although a portion of\nit submitted to Justinian long afterwards. We have reason for believing\nthat in the sixth century persons from the farthest parts of the\nTeutonic world were fighting in Italy. Otherwise it is difficult to\naccount for the knowledge of Norway and Sweden shown by both Jordanes\nand Procopius.\n\nIt would be a mistake no doubt to suppose that the comitatus owes its\norigin to this mercenary service. The evidence for its existence goes\nback so far that a Gaulish derivation would be more probable, if it is\nnot of native origin. But there can scarcely be any question that this\nform of service tended to promote its development. Here too we find a\nsatisfactory explanation of other phenomena noticeable in the Heroic\nAge, in particular of that military type of kingship which rests on no\nnational basis. Further, it needs no demonstration that such service\nwould contribute very largely to sweep away tribal prejudices and\nnational patriotism.\n\nOn the whole then the conclusion to which we are brought is that the\ncharacteristics of the Heroic Age owe their origin not so much to\nthe national movements which brought about the destruction of the\nWestern Empire as to the long-standing relations between the two\npeoples, and perhaps more especially to the influence exercised by\nmercenary service. Now we obtain a more satisfactory explanation of\nthe effects produced on the more northern peoples. It is by no means\nimprobable that warriors even from Denmark fought in the Roman armies,\nwhile others again may have entered the service of Eormenric, Attila\nor Theodric. At all events we can hardly doubt that, directly or\nindirectly, the northern peoples were affected to no small degree by\nthe influence of Roman civilisation and the Roman army.\n\nI do not suppose that anyone will be inclined to question the influence\nof the same civilisation upon the Welsh Heroic Age. The greater part\nof Britain had been under the Romans for more than three centuries,\nthough some considerable time elapsed between their retirement and\nthe beginning of the Heroic Age. But it is to be noted that the\ncharacters who figure in heroic poetry belong partly to the west but\nchiefly to the north, i.e. to those parts of the country which had\nbeen less Romanised than the rest. Moreover Welsh tradition traced\nthe ancestry of the most important western families to a certain\nCunedda who, according to a statement in the Historia Brittonum which\nmost historians seem disposed to accept, had come from a region in\nthe north beyond the Wall about--or very shortly before--the time\nwhen the Romans evacuated Britain. The chief northern families also\nbelonged, at least mainly, to districts which appear to have been\nabandoned by the Romans early in the third century, and which had\nprobably never been effectively occupied. Dumbarton, their principal\nstronghold, lay far from the frontier of the later province--indeed\non the extreme edge of the earlier frontier. All the evidence at our\ndisposal therefore indicates that the Heroic Age was not a product of\nthe Romanised part of Britain but of those communities which remained\nmore or less independent, more especially in the region beyond the\nnorthern frontier. At the same time it cannot be denied that even these\ndistricts must have been greatly affected by Roman influence--probably\nin much the same way and to at least the same degree as the Teutonic\npeoples adjacent to the Roman frontiers on the Continent. There is\nlittle doubt too that the inhabitants of these districts served as\nmercenary soldiers[648]. The conditions then appear to have been very\nsimilar to those of the Teutonic Heroic Age. First we find Roman\ninfluence, doubtless both civil and military, affecting the communities\nbeyond the frontier. Then, on the fall of the Roman power, these\ncommunities, or rather their princes, step in and take possession of\npart of the province. The chief difference between the two cases is\nthat here the new rulers were of the same nationality and spoke the\nsame language as the previous inhabitants.\n\nThe origin of the earlier Servian Heroic Age presents in some\nrespects rather an interesting parallel to the case we have just\nbeen considering. Like the northern Britons the Servians occupied\nterritories which had formerly been within the frontiers of the Roman\nEmpire. Their possession of these territories was recognised by the\nemperor Heraclius (610-640) not long after their settlement; and from\nthis time onwards they were governed by a number of petty princes of\ntheir own in a state of semi-dependence, often merely nominal, on the\nGreek Empire for about six centuries. During the whole of this period,\nexcept perhaps for a few short intervals, when they were subject to the\nBulgarians, they were constantly exposed to the influence of Greek\ncivilisation. It is probable too that they were frequently employed in\nwar by the Greek emperors, first against the Avars and later against\nthe Magyars. On the death of Manuel I (1180), when the Empire rapidly\nwent to ruin, Stefan Nemanja united the various principalities and\nformed a powerful Servian state. His work was continued and extended\nby several of his successors, especially by Uro\u0161 I (1242-1276) and\nDu\u0161an (1331-1356), the latter of whom brought nearly the whole of\nthe Balkan peninsula under his rule. Here again therefore, as in the\nTeutonic and Cumbrian Heroic Ages, we have the case of a semi-civilised\nand 'juvenile' nation exposed for a long period to the influence of a\ncivilised but decaying empire. Again too, when the older power gives\nway, the younger nation asserts itself and takes possession of its\nneighbour's territories. In this respect however the affinities of the\nServian state are rather with the kingdoms of the Ostrogoths in Italy\nor the Franks in Gaul than with the Cumbrian Welsh; for the latter\napparently never succeeded in establishing a united state--at least not\nuntil their territories had been greatly diminished.\n\nThe history of the later Servian (Bosnian) Heroic Age was of a very\ndifferent kind. After the Turkish conquest (1459 in Servia proper,\nsomewhat later in the west) a large proportion of the inhabitants\nembraced Islam. From this time onwards their condition was somewhat\ncomparable with that of their ancestors under the Greeks, though they\nwere in much closer subjection to the suzerain power than the latter\nhad ever been. Moreover, though they enjoyed a certain amount of\nprosperity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the\nTurkish empire was at the height of its power, they never again formed\nan independent state. There can be no question that during the whole of\nthis period the Mohammedan Servians were exposed to foreign influence,\nprobably to a greater extent than any of the cases with which we have\ndealt above. But this influence was of a very different character from\nthe others and little calculated to produce emancipation, whether\nintellectual or otherwise. In estimating the value of the resemblances\nwhich their heroic poetry shows to the types discussed above account\nmust be taken of the consideration that much has doubtless been\ninherited--not merely in metre and phraseology--from that of the\nearlier period.\n\nIn dealing with the Gauls we are placed at a disadvantage through not\nknowing when the Heroic Age began. But all that we do know of their\nearly history bears a most striking resemblance to the Heroic Age of\nthe Teutonic peoples. Our first trustworthy references to the Gauls\n(\u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03af) go back to the fifth century, at which time they appear to\nhave occupied France and some parts at least of western Germany. It is\ncommonly held also that they had already penetrated into Spain; and\nthere can be no doubt that by this time a considerable part of the\nBritish Isles was in the possession of Celtic peoples. By the beginning\nof the fourth century, if not earlier, they had effected settlements\nin the plain of northern Italy, from whence military expeditions\nfrequently made their way far into the peninsula. In the latter part of\nthe same century we hear of Gauls in the Eastern Alps, probably in the\nbasin of the Danube. Early in the following century Gaulish armies were\nmaking expeditions throughout the greater part of the Balkan peninsula\nand even into Greece, while one force effected a settlement in Asia\nMinor.\n\nThere is no evidence that any civilised power had acquired even a\nnominal authority over the Gauls before their subjugation by the\nRomans. But it is quite clear that for many centuries they had felt\nthe influence of the Etruscan and Greek civilisations, more especially\nthe former. Linguistic evidence is not available here, since we know\nnothing of the Etruscan language and little of the Gaulish. But the\nfact is placed beyond doubt by the large variety of articles of\nEtruscan origin or Etruscan types, which have been found throughout\nthe territories of the Gauls and even in more northern regions. The\nevidence seems to indicate that the influence of this civilisation was\ncomparable with that exercised in later times by Roman civilisation\non the Teutonic peoples. Unfortunately however we have no historical\nrecord of those movements which first brought the Gauls into southern\nEurope. All that can be said with certainty is that in the earliest\ntimes for which we have trustworthy evidence they appear usually as\nauxiliaries or mercenaries in the service of the Etruscans. Sometimes\nalso they were employed by the Greeks, Carthaginians and Samnites.\nAnd it was not only the Gauls settled in Italy who were used in this\nway. Occasionally we hear also of Transalpine Gauls or 'Gaisatoi,'\nwho came to their assistance. Polybius (II 22) states that the latter\nname means 'mercenaries' (\u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd); and even if\nhis interpretation is incorrect, it is significant enough of the\nopinion generally entertained as to the character of these warriors.\nEvidence to the same effect is afforded by the consideration that in\nthe fourth and third centuries at least half of Europe (exclusive of\nRussia) appears to have been under Celtic rule, while some five or six\ncenturies later Celtic nationality had vanished almost everywhere. Such\nphenomena are scarcely explicable unless the Celtic conquests were\nlargely in the nature of military occupations, like those of the Goths,\nVisigoths and Vandals in later times.\n\nWe have left the Greek Heroic Age until the end because in this case\nhistorical information is wanting. Here also it is clear that a high\ncivilisation had existed in a portion of the area then occupied by\nthe Achaeans; and there can be no doubt that the latter were deeply\naffected thereby. The difficulty lies in determining the relationship\nof the Achaeans to this civilisation. Prof. Ridgeway's theory on the\nquestion has already been discussed. At the same time however it was\nmentioned that there are other scholars who hold that the Achaeans\nthemselves were partly responsible for this civilisation. Some believe\nthat the prehistoric civilisation of Crete was non-Achaean until\nits fall, and yet claim an Achaean origin for the fortresses on the\nmainland (Mycenae, Tiryns, etc.)[649], while others attribute to the\nAchaeans not only the buildings on the mainland but also the later\npalaces in Crete[650]. It is recognised by the advocates of this latter\nview that a different type of civilisation appears in other--more\nwestern--districts which have at least as good a claim to be regarded\nas Achaean lands. The explanation given is that the more primitive\npottery and less elaborate buildings of these districts are true\nproducts of Achaean art and handicraft, while the remains found at\nMycenae and elsewhere are due to native, or rather Cretan, craftsmen\nand builders, who worked for Achaean lords.\n\nBoth these explanations are open, as we have seen, to the serious\nobjection that they fail to account for the differences between Homeric\nand Mycenean (Late Minoan) civilisation. It has been observed that in\nregard to armature the affinities of the former lie apparently rather\nwith the Warrior Vase (cf. p. 185), which belongs to a later period\nthan the true Mycenean age. All indications favour the view that this\ntype of armature is derived from that of the Shardina rather than\nfrom earlier Mycenean or Cretan types. Again, I do not see that the\npresence of vases of 'Late Minoan II' style in the tombs found at\nKakovatos--which is identified with the Homeric Pylos--can fairly be\nheld to prove that these tombs date from that period[651]; for, when\nthe manufacture of such vases had ceased they may very well have been\npreserved as precious heirlooms for a considerable time. Nor can it be\nsaid with certainty that these tombs date from the Achaean period[652],\nor at all events from the last days of it[653]. The evidence of the\npottery[654] found in the ruins of the citadel seems rather to suggest\nthat this site was inhabited at a later date than the tombs[655].\n\nIn the Homeric poems we certainly find the Achaeans in possession of\nthe chief centres of the prehistoric civilisation both in Crete and on\nthe mainland. Mycenae itself is represented as the principal seat of\nthe most important of the Achaean dynasties. But the poems themselves\ndo not tell us by whom these places had been founded--though the origin\nof Troy does seem to be known. If we are right in believing that only\nthe stratum represented by the Warrior Vase and the Stele corresponds\ntruly to the conditions depicted in the poems, it is a probable\ninference that the Achaeans came into possession of Mycenae at a very\nlate period in its history. In that case the presence of Agamemnon in\nthis city would be a phenomenon somewhat parallel to that of Theodric\n(Dietrich von Bern) in Ravenna. In later times, it is true, we meet\nwith stories according to which Tiryns and Mycenae were founded by\nProitos and Perseus, though it is not made clear whether these persons\nwere regarded as Achaeans. But have we any reason for believing that\nsuch stories are more trustworthy than the medieval traditions which\nattribute the foundation of famous Roman buildings to Dietrich von\nBern? In view of the parallel cases, both Teutonic and other, which we\nhave discussed in earlier chapters, it seems to me a highly improbable\nhypothesis that the men of the Greek Heroic Age had long been in\npossession of an advanced civilisation--still more that they had\nthemselves initiated the construction of great palace-fortresses such\nas those of Tiryns and Mycenae.\n\nThe problem which we are considering has been complicated by the\nprevalent assumption that the Achaeans were the first Greek-speaking\ninhabitants of the land--an assumption which seems to me to be\nincompatible with the evidence of linguistic geography. The objections\nnoted above to the Achaean origin of Mycenean civilisation would not\napply with the same force to the hypothesis that this civilisation had\nbeen taken over from an earlier branch of the Greek race, represented\nperhaps in later times by the Arcadians and Ionians. For such an\nexplanation a certain parallel might be found in the occupation of the\n(Roman) cities in Britain by British chiefs from the north and west\n(cf. p. 446 f.). But in this case, if we wish to press the analogy,\nwe must bear in mind that the civilisation of the British cities was\nnot of native origin but superimposed on the country by invaders from\noverseas. It is by no means impossible that such may have been the\ncase also in Greece. Yet on the whole the complete break between the\nprehistoric civilisation and that of historical times must be regarded\nas an argument--not conclusive of course but weighty--against any\nform of the theory that the possessors of the former were of Greek\nnationality.\n\nIt may be convenient now to recapitulate briefly the various points\nat issue. In the first place account must be taken of the undoubted\nexistence of the prehistoric civilisation, regarding the character of\nwhich evidence is still gradually accumulating. Further, it is scarcely\nopen to question that the Achaeans were brought into contact with\nthat civilisation in some form or other, though almost all scholars\nare agreed that it did not originate with them. The chief questions\nwhich remain to be settled are (i) whether the civilisation was\nnative or introduced from abroad (Crete or elsewhere), (ii) whether\nits possessors were Greeks or non-Greeks, (iii) whether its monuments\nwere constructed under Achaean domination or before the centres of\ncivilisation fell into Achaean hands. The first of these questions can\nonly be settled by a thorough examination of the various sites, such\nas is now being conducted[656]. All that can be said as yet is that\nthe buildings in several cases show work belonging to more than one\nperiod. It is now believed that the earlier parts of the fortresses\nat Tiryns and Mycenae go back at least to the beginning of 'Late\nMinoan' times, i.e. probably to the sixteenth century. On the second\nquestion something has been said above. But until further evidence is\nforthcoming a dogmatic expression of opinion would be out of place.\nWith regard to the third it appears to me that such evidence as we\nhave favours Prof. Ridgeway's view, viz. that the Achaeans came into\ncontact with this civilisation only at its fall. In that case moreover\nthe Greek Heroic Age will fall into line with all the other Heroic Ages\nwhich we have discussed above.\n\nLastly, it seems to me of essential importance that the relationship\nof the Achaeans to the 'sea-peoples,' more especially the Shardina,\nshould not be overlooked. We cannot with certainty determine whether\nor not the Achaeans were actually descended from the Shardina. But the\nresemblance between the two in regard to armature scarcely leaves room\nfor doubt that the one had at least come greatly under the influence\nof the other. Consequently, whatever may be thought as to the proposed\nidentification of the Akaiuasha (cf. p. 188 f.), it is highly probable\nthat the ancestors of the Achaeans had once been associated with the\n'sea-peoples[657].'\n\nWe have seen that among the Teutonic peoples, as also among the Gauls\nand elsewhere, mercenary service was a factor of supreme importance\nin the development of those features which give to the Heroic Age\nits distinctive character. Now it is as mercenary soldiers that the\n'sea-peoples' come before our notice from the time when they are first\nmentioned down to their disappearance. We know from the Tell-el-Amarna\ntablets that Shardina had entered the Egyptian service in the reign\nof Amenhotep IV or his predecessor, i.e. in the first half of the\nfourteenth century. Later we find them fighting under both Rameses\nII and Rameses III. The references therefore extend over a period of\nnearly two centuries. Nor was it only to the Egyptians that they lent\ntheir services. The army of the Hittites encountered by Rameses II at\nKadesh is said to have contained Shardina, and warriors of the same\nstock were present in the Libyan army defeated by Merenptah.\n\nWith the Shardina we usually find a number of other peoples\nassociated[658]; and there is no reason for doubting that these were\nemployed in the same way. Reference may be made to the description\nof the allies of the Hittites in the Poem of Pentaur, where this is\nexpressed quite clearly[659]. The Pulesatha also represented on the\nmonuments of Rameses III are evidently well-disciplined professional\nsoldiers.\n\nThere can be no question then that professional military service, very\nfrequently in the employment of foreign nations, was the vocation of\nthose bands of warriors whom we have to regard as the predecessors\nof the Achaeans of the Heroic Age. But we can scarcely suppose that\nthis mercenary service first began in regions so distant as Egypt. It\nhas been mentioned above that the earliest reference to Shardina in\nthe Egyptian service goes back to a time when the Cretan palaces were\nprobably still standing (cf. p. 184). If so and if, as is commonly\nbelieved, the absence of fortifications in Crete was due to the\npossession of a thalassocracy by its rulers, we must conclude that\nthese rulers permitted the early expeditions of the 'sea-peoples.'\nThat can scarcely mean anything else than that the Shardina and their\nconfederates were first employed as mercenaries by the Cretans\nthemselves[660]. In that case the relations of these peoples with the\ncivilised states of the Aegean were in all probability very similar to\nthose of the Teutonic peoples with Rome before and after the fall of\nthe Western Empire.\n\nThe ultimate origin of the Shardina and their confederates is\na question which as yet can hardly be regarded as ripe for\ndiscussion[661]. Later discoveries may show that they were the\ninhabitants of the western or northern parts of Greece; or on the other\nhand they may confirm the view that these peoples had come in part from\nthe western Mediterranean. All that can be said at present is that some\nof these peoples--the Pulesatha type--appear to have long been settled\nin the Aegean area[662] and that the resemblances and differences\nbetween these and the Shardina are of such a kind as to suggest that\nthe two were peoples racially distinct[663], yet living in adjacent\nregions and following a similar mode of life, at least so far as the\nmilitary element is concerned. On the whole the balance of probability\nseems at present to be in favour of the following propositions: (1)\nthat the Shardina element was intrusive; (2) that its true home is\nto be looked for rather in the north than in the west[664]; (3) that\nits presence or influence in the Greek world is not unconnected with\nthat series of national movements which introduced Thraco-Phrygian\npopulations into Asia Minor[665].\n\nIt is by no means impossible that the Shardina were the direct\nancestors of the Achaeans. On the other hand they may have belonged\nto an earlier wave of Greek invasion. Or again they may have been\na non-Greek (perhaps Thraco-Phrygian) people whose relations with\nthe Achaeans were rather in the nature of influence, however deeply\nthis may have penetrated. That the Achaeans also were an essentially\nmilitary people is shown by the tone of Homeric poetry throughout and\nby the story of the Iliad as a whole, as well as by many incidental\npassages in the Odyssey. We have good reason too for believing that\ntheir occupation was in the nature of a military rather than a tribal\nsettlement. That is shown not only by the social and political\nconditions reflected in the Homeric poems[666] but also by the\nfact that, except in two comparatively unimportant districts, they\ndisappeared after the Heroic Age as completely as the Ostrogoths.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe course of our investigations has led us to conclude that there is\nno reason for regarding the Greek Heroic Age as an exception to the\ngeneral rule applying to such phenomena. Neither here nor in any other\ncase are we justified in believing that the Heroic Age was a native\noutgrowth from an ancient and highly developed civilisation. It does\nnot appear that a Heroic Age can arise from such conditions, any more\nthan from conditions which may properly be called primitive. In four of\nthe six cases which we have considered--and we need scarcely hesitate\nto reckon the Greek case as a fifth--the Heroic Age can be traced\nback to a similar series of causes. Firstly, we find a long period\nof 'education,' in which a semi-civilised people has been profoundly\naffected from without by the influence of a civilised people. Then a\ntime has come in which the semi-civilised people has attained to a\ndominant position and possessed itself, at least to some extent, of\nits neighbour's property. The phenomena which we have recognised as\ncharacteristic of the Heroic Age appear to be the effects produced upon\nthe semi-civilised people by these conditions.\n\nFor the exceptional case--that of the Mohammedan Servians--a special\nexplanation has been suggested. Whether this explanation be correct\nor not, I do not mean to assert that the Heroic Age is universally\ndue to the same conditions. They can scarcely hold good for the Irish\nHeroic Age; and outside Europe also there are cases, e.g. among the\nBantu peoples, of societies which may be called 'heroic' and yet would\nprobably require a different explanation. All such cases doubtless\npostulate conditions so far advanced as to permit the existence of\na class of persons who have the opportunity and the ambition to\nassert their individuality among and above their compatriots. To deal\nadequately with these cases however would require a greater amount of\nethnological knowledge than I possess. I have ventured above to suggest\nthat 'Mars and the Muses' are necessary for the formation of a Heroic\nAge. But beyond this I will not attempt to formulate a definition of\nthe elements which constitute a Heroic Age in general. My object has\nbeen to call attention to certain common characteristics exhibited by a\nlimited number of epochs in European history.\n\nThe various Heroic Ages of Europe are usually connected with\nconsiderable movements of population. There is some reason for\nsuspecting that this may be true even of the Irish Heroic Age. But such\nmovements do not necessarily produce a Heroic Age. We have no evidence\nfor the existence of a Heroic Age resulting from the great movement\nof the Slavs into eastern Germany during the fifth and following\ncenturies[667]. Presumably the antecedent conditions were wanting.\nSo also with the Dorians. It was only the wreckage of the old Aegean\ncivilisation with which they were brought into contact. The days of\nmercenary service too, with all its civilising and at the same time\ndenationalising influence, had apparently passed away long before they\ncame to the front.\n\nThe general direction taken by these movements--though here the Irish\ncase is an exception--was towards the culture lands of the south--i.e.\nthe direction taken by movements of population was the opposite of\nthat taken by movements of culture. The effect of the movements which\ntook place in the Teutonic Heroic Age was to produce a series of\ninclined or tilted strata of population over a large part of Europe.\nThus the Franks formed a ruling aristocracy in Gaul; but the subjects\n(_coloni_, _lati_) of the Old Saxons were in all probability largely of\nFrankish blood. Again, the Vandals in Africa were the wealthiest and\nmost luxurious community known to Procopius[668]. Yet in Genseric's\ntime (cf. p. 369) there still remained a Vandal population in the old\nhome of the nation, of which all traces had disappeared within the\nnext century. Presumably they had been overwhelmed by the surrounding\npeoples. Similar phenomena are to be found among the Goths and other\nTeutonic peoples, and in earlier times among the Gauls and Greeks. In\nthe latter case we may cite as an instance the Cynurioi (on the east\ncoast of the Peloponnesos), who were believed to be Ionians, though\nthey had been absorbed by the Dorians of Argos. The fact therefore that\nwe hear of no people called Achaeans in Epeiros cannot be held to prove\nthat the Achaeans had never inhabited that region.\n\nWe hear sometimes from legends of national migrations caused by\ninsufficiency of food. Historical records seem to show that such\nmovements were more frequently due to pressure from neighbouring\npeoples. But it is greatly to be doubted whether these movements\nusually involved a total displacement of population. Cases like that\nof the Vandals indeed indicate that frequently the more enterprising\npart of the community were the first to move and that the chief impulse\ncame from the attractions offered by the chance of living upon the\nfruits of others' labour, whether in the form of plunder or tribute.\nSo far as our records go back, we find among the Teutonic peoples, as\namong the Gauls and the early Greeks, a numerous class who prefer the\nmilitary life to the labour involved in agriculture. Indeed one of the\nmost remarkable features of the Teutonic Heroic Age--and probably of\nthe Gaulish also[669]--is the ease with which immense hosts of warriors\ncould be gathered for an enterprise of plunder or conquest. It is\ncertain that these hosts were frequently drawn from far and wide. If\nthe national kings would not embark on such enterprises their subjects\nwere ready to embrace the service of neighbouring princes, or even that\nof distant or alien nations, such as the Romans. It is the existence of\nthis military element which in various epochs of European history and\nunder similar cultural conditions has produced the phenomena comprised\nunder the term 'Heroic Age.' For the special characteristics however to\nwhich we have called attention above--emancipation from primitive ideas\nand absence of national feeling--the explanation is to be found in\ncontact with civilised communities, especially in the form of mercenary\nservice. The military life further had the effect of making the kings\nregard themselves primarily as commanders of armies. It was for their\nwarriors that consideration was required rather than for the tillers of\nthe soil, who were largely of alien nationality.\n\nWhen this is realised it becomes easy to understand the instability of\nheroic society. The military followers of a peace-loving king, unless\nhe was very wealthy and generous, were liable to drift away, while the\nbulk of the population counted for nothing. In the absence of any truly\nnational organisation or national feeling all depended on the personal\nqualities of the leaders. Under Theodric the Ostrogoths were the chief\npower in Europe; but within thirty years of his death they disappear\nand are not heard of again. Under Du\u0161an the Servians seemed destined\nto absorb all that was left of the Greek empire; after his death they\nfailed to offer any effective resistance to the Turks. The kingdoms\nof the Greek Heroic Age seem to have succumbed to much less formidable\nantagonists. So numerous indeed are cases of this kind that one is\nperhaps justified in regarding national disaster as the normal ending\nof such epochs.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Heroic Age, both Greek and Teutonic, presents us with the picture\nof a society largely free from restraint of any kind. In the higher\nranks tribal law has ceased to maintain its force; and its decay leaves\nthe individual free from obligations both to the kindred and to the\ncommunity. He may disregard the bonds of kinship even to the extent of\ntaking a kinsman's life; and he recognises no authority beyond that of\nthe lord whose service he has entered. The same freedom is exhibited in\nhis attitude to the deities.\n\nIt is of course in princes that we find these features most strongly\ndeveloped. That which they prize above all else is the ability to\nindulge their desires to the full--in feasting and every form of\nenjoyment for themselves, in unlimited generosity to their friends, in\nferocious vindictiveness towards their foes. The hero of the Odyssey,\nwhen his opportunity arrives, sets no limit to the vengeance which he\nexacts, from prince, goatherd and maidservant. Achilles, the chief hero\nof the Iliad, is transformed into a savage when he gets possession of\nthe dead body of his enemy. His story furnishes a fitting parallel\nto that of Alboin, whose brutal conduct brought upon him so swift a\nretribution. And it is to be remembered that this Alboin's generosity\nwas a theme of poetry from Italy to England.\n\nThe best side of heroic kingship may be seen in such a character as\nHrothgar. His conception of the duties of a national ruler may have\nbeen of a somewhat elementary character. But it is rather as the\nhead of a large household that we have to regard him; and as such\nhe commands our esteem. Even in the Merovingian family--we may cite\nGregory's description (III 25) of Theodberht--there were princes who\nwon the respect of Roman ecclesiastics. In the courts of such princes\nthe conditions of life were probably as good as at any time for many\ncenturies later. We have no reason for supposing that the case was\notherwise in the Heroic Age of Greece.\n\nBut above all we have to remember the heroic poems. It is not\nreasonable to regard the Anglo-Saxon poems, much less the Homeric\npoems, as products of barbarism. The courts which gave birth to such\npoetry must have appropriated to a considerable extent the culture,\nas well as the wealth and luxury, of earlier civilisations. It is to\nbe remarked however that the hold which these poems have exercised\non subsequent ages, in very different stages of culture, is due not\nonly to their artistic qualities but also to the absorbing interest\nof the situations which they depict. This interest arises very\nlargely from the extraordinary freedom from restraint enjoyed by the\ncharacters in the gratification of their feelings and desires and\nfrom the tremendous and sudden vicissitudes of fortune to which they\nare exposed. The pictures presented to us are those of persons by no\nmeans ignorant of the pleasures and even the refinements of civilised\nlife, yet dominated by the pride and passions which spring from an\nentirely reckless individualism and untrained by experience to exercise\nmoderation. According to the view put forward above the explanation of\nsuch features is to be found not so much in any peculiarly fertile gift\nof imagination by which the conventional court poetry of these periods\nwas inspired, but rather in the circumstances of the times and in the\ncharacter of the courts which produced that poetry.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[637] Cremation may have a common origin in the two cases; but this\npractice appears to have been introduced into the North at least\nfifteen centuries before the Heroic Age. It has been suggested that the\norigin of the practice may be found in the late neolithic settlements\nin the district of the Dniestr and Dniepr--dating probably from the\nlatter part of the third millennium (cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des\nAltertums_\u00b2, I \u00a7 537). Evidence however is now accumulating to the\neffect that cremation was practised in Crete in Early Minoan times.\n\n[638] _The Early Age of Greece_, Vol. I, Ch. IV and passim, together\nwith a number of articles which have appeared in various publications.\n\n[639] I mention this point only because Prof. Ridgeway lays stress upon\nit. I do not myself regard the use of iron weapons as an essential\ncharacteristic of the Heroic Age. The evidence seems to me to indicate\nthat such weapons came into use only towards the close of the period\n(cf. p. 199 ff.).\n\n[640] By this term I mean 'belonging to communities which spoke Celtic\nlanguages.' It is only fair to add that Prof. Ridgeway appears to have\nracial (physical), rather than linguistic, characteristics in view. But\nI am not clear whether he means to include among his 'Celts' peoples\nwho used other than Celtic languages.\n\n[641] What I mean by the term 'Homeric civilisation' will probably be\nclear from Chapters X and XI. I cannot admit that a satisfactory case\nhas been made out for believing the civilisation of the Heroic Age to\nhave differed widely from that of the poets' own times. The excavations\nat Cnossos have brought to light the existence (in 'Late Minoan' times)\nof a highly organised bureaucratic system, for which analogies enough\nare to be found in Egyptian records of the same period. But the poems\nthemselves do not give the slightest hint of acquaintance with such a\nsystem. The absence of striking inconsistencies which has been remarked\nabove (p. 241) is unintelligible unless the civilisation with which\nthe poets themselves were acquainted--presumably in Aeolis--was a more\nor less direct continuation of that of the Heroic Age. Such changes as\nhad taken place were in general probably of a retrograde character,\nin spite of the growing use of iron and possibly also of riding. But\nthere is no ground, so far as I can see, for supposing that the Homeric\npoems are records of the people and events of a highly civilised age\npreserved by the traditions of a semi-barbaric society.\n\n[642] Both in Ionia and Cyprus there were of course cities which,\naccording to tradition, had been founded by Achaean colonists. But the\nGreek population as a whole made no such claim in either case. For\nCyprus cf. Herodotus VII 90.\n\n[643] Aristotle (_Meteorolog._ I 14. 21 f.) applies the term \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f21\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 to the country round Dodona and the Acheloos; but it is commonly\nheld that in this he was following a late Molossian story relating to\nDodona, rather than a genuine tradition. Yet the part played by the\nAcheron in Greek religion and poetry (cf. p. 422) suggests that this\nregion was at one time traditionally regarded by a portion of the Greek\nrace as its homeland.\n\n[644] A different view is taken by Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d. Alt._\u00b2, I \u00a7\n473, note) who accepts the statement of the Lydian historian Xanthos\n(quoted by Strabo, XIV 5. 29; cf. XII 8. 3) that the Phrygian invasion\ntook place \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03a4\u03c1\u03c9\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac. He holds that this statement is confirmed\nby a passage in Proclus' epitome of the Telegony (cf. Kinkel, _Epic.\nGr. Fragm._, p. 57), where the Thesprotoi are represented as being at\nwar with the Brygoi. But the latter are clearly the Brygoi of Albania;\nand there is nothing in the context to suggest that the Phrygians (of\nAsia) were believed to be still with their kinsfolk in the west. It\nseems to me that the statement of a fifth century writer, who is known\nonly from fragments, requires stronger confirmation than this before\nit can be accepted as evidence for the chronological relationship\nof events which took place some seven centuries before his time.\nEspecially is this the case when such a statement is directly opposed\nto several passages in the Iliad, which clearly recognise the presence\nof the Phrygians in Asia. In view of the fact that the queen (Hecabe)\nis said to be a Phrygian it is scarcely safe to assume that these\nelements are unessential or late additions to the story. But, more than\nthis, Xanthos' account itself does not appear to be free from Homeric\ninfluence. The names \u0392\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd and \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 may possibly be derived\nfrom Phrygian tradition--perhaps ultimately from the same source as\nIl. II 862 f.--but the leader's name (\u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) is not only Homeric\nbut obviously a derivative of \u03a3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the name of a river in the\nTroad. It may be observed that a hero of the same name (Hector's son)\nfigures in a somewhat similar story recorded by Strabo elsewhere (XIII\n1. 52); and for my part I see no reason for attaching more importance\nto Xanthos' account than to this. The expression \u1f10\u03ba ... \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 clearly suggests that he had confused the tradition of the\nPhrygian invasion with certain much later movements (of the Bithynians,\nThynoi, etc.), some of which do seem to have proceeded from the\nquarter indicated. On the other hand all the evidence which we have\n(cf. Herodotus, VII 73 and VIII 138, and the position of the Brygoi in\nhistorical times) points to the western part of the Balkan peninsula as\nthe original home of the Phrygians.\n\nAs to the nationality of the Trojans themselves--the Homeric\nTrojans--Prof. Meyer does not appear to have expressed an opinion.\nThe question will doubtless be discussed in the next volume of his\nwork. His theory however would seem to involve that any historical\nevents which may underlie the story of the Iliad must be referred at\nleast to the thirteenth century; for the date which he gives for the\nPhrygian invasion is about, or shortly after, 1200. Here again however\nI cannot help thinking that the evidence is far from conclusive. There\nmay very well be a connection between the fall of the Hittite kingdom,\nwhich apparently did take place about this time, and the invasion\nencountered by Rameses III (cf. p. 188). But I am by no means clear\nwhy it is necessary to conclude that the Phrygian invasion immediately\npreceded these events. If the Masa and Dardenui of the Poem of Pentaur\nare rightly identified with the Mysians and Dardanoi we shall probably\nhave to date the earliest settlements at least a century before this\ntime. As for the Dardanoi--who apparently were regarded as the parent\nstock of the Homeric Trojans (cf. Il. XX 215 ff.)--I see no reason for\ndoubting their European origin any more than that of the Phrygians\n(Brygoi) and the Mysians (Moisoi), whose neighbours they were both in\nAsia and in the Balkans. But at the same time there seems to me to be\nequally little reason for referring the events on which the Iliad is\nbased to times anterior to the eleventh century.\n\n[645] Under such conditions the nearest approach to the heroic spirit\nis afforded by athletic contests. Such contests have at times produced\nwhat we may call 'heroic' poetry of Stage I (cf. p. 94). But the motive\nfor further elaboration of the stories is wanting.\n\n[646] In the folk-tale--at least in some forms of it--the hero's\narrival in the cave is involuntary.\n\n[647] In this chapter I am using the word 'Roman' in a very wide sense,\nviz. for the civilisation of the Empire as a whole. Both the material\nobjects and the influence of which I am speaking came doubtless rather\nfrom the provinces than from Italy itself. In many cases it would\nprobably be more correct to use the term 'Romanised Celtic'; cf. _The\nOrigin of the English Nation_, p. 189 ff., though I think now that\nI was mistaken here in doubting the importance of (strictly) Roman\ninfluence upon the Angli--especially in military matters.\n\n[648] It appears from the Notitia Dignitatum that troops of Attacotti\nwere largely employed by the Romans on the Continent at the beginning\nof the fifth century. According to St Jerome (_Adv. Iouinianum_, II 7)\nthe Attacotti were a British people; and they are mentioned by Ammianus\nMarcellinus (XXVI 4. 5; XXVII 8. 5) as ravaging the province of\nBritain, together with the Picts and Scots, in the reign of Valentinian\nI. It is commonly held that they belonged to the south of Scotland,\nthough opinions differ as to whether they were Britons (properly\nspeaking) or Picts of Galloway.\n\n[649] This appears to be the view taken by Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d.\nAlt._\u00b2, I pp. 701, 719 f.). The problem will no doubt be discussed more\nfully in his next volume. Here I need only mention that the recent\ndiscoveries of wall-paintings at Tiryns and elsewhere seem to me to\nweigh rather heavily against the view that the inhabitants of these\nbuildings were of a totally different nationality from the 'Minoan'\nCretans. It is gradually becoming clear also that--contrary to what\nhad been supposed at first--the use of writing was not unknown on the\nmainland; cf. Evans, _Scripta Minoa_, I p. 56 ff.\n\n[650] Cf. especially D\u00f6rpfeld, _Ath. Mitteilungen_, XXXII 600 ff.\n\n[651] Cf. D\u00f6rpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, XXXII vi ff. Dr D\u00f6rpfeld however\nholds (_ib._, p. 595 ff.) that 'Late Minoan II' and 'Late Minoan\nIII' were contemporaneous and assigns both styles to a period (B.C.\n1400-1100) considerably later than English archaeologists will allow\nfor the former.\n\n[652] One of the chief arguments for this view is that the tombs show\ntraces of cremation. But account must be taken of the possibility that\nthey may have belonged to an earlier (Arcadian?) stratum of Greek\npopulation.\n\n[653] Cf. Dawkins, _Journ. Hell. St._, XXVII 296, where it is suggested\nthat the tomb first explored may have belonged possibly to the\nancestors of Nestor.\n\n[654] The great majority of the sherds found in the ruins of the\ncitadel were of that monochrome type which has been met with elsewhere\non the west coast of Greece (Leucas, Olympia, etc.) and which Dr\nD\u00f6rpfeld regards as the native pottery of the Achaeans; cf. _Ath.\nMitt._, XXXII xv f. Some sherds of the same type were found in the\ntombs together with the remains of Mycenean vases. Only six fragments\nof Mycenean pottery were found in the citadel.\n\n[655] This explanation is rejected by Dr D\u00f6rpfeld (_Ath. Mitt._, XXXIII\n316); but there does not appear to be any definite evidence that the\ncitadel was destroyed soon after the construction of the tombs.\n\n[656] The general effect of recent discoveries has been to bring out\na closer resemblance between the Cretan and mainland deposits than\nhad hitherto been suspected (cf. Evans, _Scripta Minoa_, I p. 55 f.).\nThe affinities too are by no means confined to portable objects. In\nparticular note should be taken of the wall-paintings at Thebes and\nelsewhere--more especially those recently discovered at Tiryns, which\nbelong to two distinct periods (cf. Rodenwaldt, _Ath. Mitt._, XXXVI\n198 ff.). The resemblance of these to similar paintings from Crete is\nvery marked, yet perhaps scarcely sufficient as yet to prove that the\npossessors of Tiryns were of Cretan origin.\n\n[657] For the Aegean connections of the sea-peoples see p. 190 f.\nAccount is also to be taken of the deposits found in the foreign\nsettlements at Gurob and elsewhere in the Fayum, to which belonged the\ntomb of An-Tursha ('Pillar of the Tursha or Thuirsha'). These deposits\ncover a period of about two centuries, from the reign of Amenhotep\nIII to that of Sety II or slightly later--a period corresponding\npractically to that in which we find historical references to the\nsea-peoples. They contained many stirrup-vases and other objects of\nAegean origin. A peculiar custom which prevailed here was that of\nburning a man's personal effects--presumably at death--in a hole cut in\nthe floor of the house. No human remains were found in these holes, the\nbodies being buried in cemeteries according to Egyptian fashion; but\nit has been suggested that the practice may have been due to a former\ncustom of cremation (cf. Petrie, _Illahun, Kahun and Gurob_, p. 16 ff.).\n\n[658] When Shardina alone are mentioned account must of course be\ntaken of the possibility that this name is representative of a class.\nThe Egyptian mercenaries, like those of the Hittites and Libyans,\nmay really have been drawn from a number of similar peoples who were\ncollectively known under the name which had first become familiar in\nEgypt.\n\n[659] Cf. the quotation given above, p. 247, note 6.\n\n[660] I am not aware that representations of Shardina have yet been\nfound in Crete. Note must be taken however of the porcelain fragment\nfound in the third shaft-grave at Mycenae (cf. p. 191, note 4). The\ndate of these shaft-graves can scarcely be much later than that of\nthe destruction of the palace at Cnossos. Indeed it appears to be the\nprevalent view at present that they date from 'Late Minoan I,' i.e.\nbefore the palace-period; cf. Forsdyke, _Journ. Hell. St._, XXXI 116,\nHall, _ib._, 119. If this is correct the porcelain fragment must of\ncourse be much older than the earliest Egyptian references to the\nShardina.\n\n[661] The use of the word _\u1e33rn\u00b7t_ in the great Karnak inscription of\nMerenptah has given rise to much disagreement among Egyptologists.\nProf. Breasted (_Ancient Records, Egypt_, III p. 247 note) understands\nfrom it that the Shardina and their confederates were circumcised. But\nthe allusion is clearly to something which differentiated these peoples\nfrom the Libyans. The Libyans themselves however are believed to have\npractised circumcision (cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._\u00b2, I \u00a7 167).\n\n[662] Cf. pp. 190 (note 2), 247. For further references see Hall,\n_Journ. Hell. St._, XXXI 119 ff. In particular note should be taken\nof the fact that the feather head-dress is worn by Ionian or Carian\nmercenaries on a monument of Sennacherib (_ib._, p. 122 f.). Sir A.\nJ. Evans (_op. cit._, pp. 24 ff., 285 ff.) attributes the Phaistos\ndisk--on which this type of head-dress first occurs--to the south-west\nof Asia Minor. In this connection however it is perhaps worth calling\nto mind that according to Thucydides (I 4, 8; cf. Herodotus, I 171)\nthe Cyclades also were originally inhabited by Carians. The reference\nis perhaps properly to the Leleges, a people who may have been nearly\nrelated to the Lycians.\n\n[663] The Pulesatha are represented as beardless, whereas many of\nthe Shardina wear beards. More important however is the difference\nin physiognomy between the two types. It has been observed that the\nPulesatha approximate very closely to the Greek type of classical times.\n\n[664] Attempts have been made to find traces of the Shardina in the\n'nuraghi' of Sardinia and the burial-places adjacent to them; but, so\nfar as I am aware, no definite evidence in favour of this connection\nhas yet been obtained beyond the fact that a number of statuettes\nwith horned helmets have been found in the island. The chief argument\nagainst the western origin of the Shardina is the absence of evidence,\neither in history or tradition, for movements of population or even\nfor cultural influence from this quarter--at least until Roman\ntimes--whereas evidence is abundant not only for cultural influence in\nthe reverse direction but also for settlements both of 'Illyrians' and\nGreeks in Italy. On the other hand it is perhaps worth noting that a\nhelmet somewhat similar to that of the Shardina survived in historical\ntimes among the Thracians (cf. Herodotus VII 76). Further, from Il.\nXIII 576 f. we may probably infer that the Thracian peoples had early\nbecome famous for the manufacture of weapons. Influence from this\nquarter may have made its way into Greece by more than one channel.\nBut it should be observed that Homeric poetry shows some acquaintance\nwith the districts to the north of Epeiros and Thessaly. In particular\nnote should be taken of certain personal names derived from names of\npeoples in this region, e.g. \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u0398\u03c5\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. It is perhaps\nnot without significance that the two latter of these occur in the most\nimportant of the Achaean families, while the antiquity of the last is\nguaranteed by the aspirate (as against \u0394\u03c5\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9).\n\n[665] The extent of these movements may be estimated by the number\nof names which occur both in the Balkan peninsula and on the east\nside of the Aegean, e.g. _Brygoi_ (_Phryges_), _Dardanoi_, _Moisoi_\n(_Mysoi_), _Mygdones_, _Sintoi_ (_Sinties_), _Pelasgoi_; and it is not\nto be overlooked that on the European side most of these names occur\nin the basins of the Axios and Strymon or the region between them.\nAttention should be paid also to the common element in place-names,\nmore especially to those (e.g. \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) which occur in the islands\n(Crete, etc.) as well as in the two areas under discussion; for they\nseem to indicate that the movements from the Balkan peninsula were not\nconfined to the Asiatic mainland. Even in Asia Minor itself however\nthe Thraco-Phrygian movements may at first have affected a much larger\narea than that in which languages of this type survived in historical\ntimes. Herodotus (I 171) states that on the ground of common ancestry\nthe Carians allowed Lydians and Mysians to use the temple at Mylasa--a\nprivilege which they did not concede to other peoples, even to those\nwho spoke the same language as themselves. This passage is usually\ninterpreted as pointing to a traditional religious federation of the\nindigenous peoples. But it is a serious objection to this view that\nthe Mysians were clearly of European origin. If the Lydian and Carian\nlanguages were non-Indo-European, as is commonly believed, they may\nhave been taken over from indigenous peoples such as the Caunioi,\nwhose language was similar to that of the Carians and who seem to\nhave been among the peoples excluded from the temple at Mylasa. The\npossibility that the Carian language belonged originally to the Caunioi\nis suggested by Herodotus himself.\n\n[666] In particular note may be taken of the absence of national names\nfor the populations of several of the most important kingdoms; cf. p.\n389, note.\n\n[667] It may be observed also that some seven centuries elapsed between\nthe settlement of the Servians on the lower Danube and the beginning of\ntheir (first) Heroic Age. This latter period was of course accompanied\nby an extension of the area occupied by the Servians, though the newly\nwon territories were subsequently lost through the Turkish conquest.\n\n[668] _Vand._ II 6: \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f67\u03bd \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0392\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd.... \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03be\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u1fc3 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3, \u1f45\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9. \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1, \u1f23\u03bd\n\u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03a3\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fa4\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f51\u03b4\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f56 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\n\n[669] We may compare the force led by Agamemnon against Troy and the\ngreat mixed host encountered by Rameses III (cf. p. 188).\n\n\n\n\nADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.\n\n\nPage 19 ff. For further information the reader may be referred to Miss\nClarke's _Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period_\n(Cambridge, 1911), which contains a very clear and interesting account\nof the various characters mentioned in the heroic poems.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 43, ll. 5-7. This suggestion can hardly be maintained. The true\nname of Theodberht's son was probably Theodwald.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 46, l. 3 ff. The consideration of this difficult question has\nrecently been somewhat facilitated by Richter's _Chronologische Studien\nzur ags. Literatur_ (Halle, 1910). The general effect of Dr Richter's\ninvestigations is to confirm the view put forward by Prof. Sarazzin\n(_Engl. Stud._, XVIII 170 ff.) as to the antiquity of Genesis A.\nUnfortunately I fear that the statistics are not complete and, further,\nthat the evidence is not always treated with strict impartiality.\nThus in Beowulf such half-verses as _to widan feore_ are regarded as\nproofs of shortening (through loss of _h_) and reckoned in the final\nstatistics (pp. 9, 85); but in Genesis A the metrically equivalent _on\nfyore lifde_ is not so reckoned (pp. 24, 89). The half-verse _geseon\nmeahton_ is cited in Beowulf without qualification (p. 15), but in\nExodus as doubtful (p. 18). In Beowulf _-wundor seon_ is taken to be\n-\u00d7- (pp. 13, 15), but in Daniel A it is treated as doubtful (p. 32).\nDr Richter's conclusion that Genesis A is an earlier poem than Beowulf\nis certainly not substantiated by the treatment of _feore_ or of\npostconsonantal _r_, _l_, _m_, _n_[670], or again by that of _frea_,\n_don_, _gan_, _sie_[670]; while compounds such as _\u00fereanyd_ obviously\ndo not stand on the same footing as case-forms like _\u00ferea_. It is only\nin the treatment of intervocalic _h_ that Genesis A apparently shows\na more archaic character than Beowulf. In the former poem Dr Richter\ncites only one case of contraction (p. 28), and even this is doubtful;\nbut the same remark applies to at least 18 of the 24 (genuine) cases\nwhich he cites for Beowulf (p. 15). Out of the five or six probable\ncases of contraction in this poem three occur in practically the same\nphrase--_in_ (_on_, _to_) _sele \u00feam hean_--while two of the others\noccur in consecutive verses (910 f.). The conclusion to which the\nevidence seems to me to point is that both Genesis A and Beowulf (even\nin its Christianised form) date from the seventh century, but that the\nformer has been somewhat better preserved than the latter. As Genesis A\nis doubtless of monastic origin, we may reasonably expect that it was\ncommitted to writing at an earlier date. In the intervening period the\ntext of Beowulf may have suffered many changes (such as the insertion\nof the article) at the hands of minstrels.\n\nThe further question raised by Prof. Sarazzin (_op. cit._, p. 192 ff.)\nas to the relationship of Genesis A to Caedmon cannot be discussed\nhere. But in view of the evidence brought forward I do think it\nwould be worth while to examine and compare the characteristics of\nthe various 'Caedmonic' poems from all points of view. Apart from\nthe extremely improbable dating of certain sound-changes proposed by\nProf. Morsbach (cf. p. 66 ff. above) and accepted both by Sarazzin\nand Richter, I see no reason for supposing that Caedmon's poems have\nentirely perished.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 61, l. 4 ff. Throughout this book I have followed the view\ngenerally held by scholars in the past that the expression _geongum\ncempan_ in Beow. 2044 refers to Ingeld. In recent years several\nscholars have adopted a different interpretation, viz. that it means\nnot the prince himself but a nameless member of his retinue. This\ninterpretation is due primarily to v. 2061 f., where it has been\nassumed, somewhat hastily in my opinion, (1) that _se o\u00f0er_ must\ndenote the slayer and (2) that Ingeld's own country is the scene\nof the tragedy. On the basis of this interpretation Prof. Olrik\n(_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, II p. 30 ff., especially p. 37 ff.) has\nnow put forward a theory that the episode in Beowulf has little more\nthan the names in common with Saxo's story of Ingellus' revenge, and\nthat the latter is in its main features the creation of a Danish poet\nof Harold Bluetooth's time. His explanation is certainly interesting\nand ingenious; but at the same time it appears to me to be open to\nserious objections. Thus he has to admit (p. 39) that in the only\nother reference to the bridal tragedy ('bryllupskampen') contained\nin the poem (v. 82 ff.) the scene is laid in the Danish king's hall.\nHis explanation is that here we have a variant form of the story (cf.\nWidsith, v. 45 ff), emanating from a different poet. But surely one\ncannot place much confidence in an interpretation which involves the\nassumption of such an inconsistency as this[671]. Still more important\nis the reference to Ingeld (_Hinieldus_) in Alcuin's letter to Hygebald\n(cf. p. 41), which Prof. Olrik seems to have entirely ignored. From\nthis passage it would seem that Ingeld's fame was as great in England\nin the eighth century as it ever became in Denmark; and such fame\nis scarcely compatible with the passive r\u00f4le assigned to him by the\ntheory under discussion. But, more than this, have we any ground for\nsupposing that Alcuin did not exercise his judgment in taking Ingeld\nas his example of a _perditus rex_? If the story of Ingeld known to\nhim was substantially identical with that recorded by Saxo, as I\nmyself believe, he could hardly have found a case in which Christian\nand heathen obligations presented a more glaring contrast. To the\nheathen this hero appealed as the pious son who exacts vengeance for\nhis father's death; but to the Christian he was doubly abhorrent, not\nmerely as a heathen but also as a murderer and a truce-breaker.\n\nLike other heroic stories recorded by Saxo and Icelandic authors the\nstory of Ingellus has without doubt a long poetic history behind it.\nProf. Olrik's investigations have rendered it probable that an element\nin this poetry dates from the tenth century. It may be that the poem\nused by Saxo was actually composed--or recast--at that time. But I must\nconfess to some scepticism as to the possibility of determining with\ncertainty what proportion of the material is to be assigned to the\nvarious periods intermediate between the sixth and twelfth centuries;\nand I am disposed to think that in general Prof. Olrik has underrated\nthe significance of the earlier elements.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 64, l. 6. It should have been mentioned that the expression \"to\npersons born after 800\" applies only to the period extending down to\n975. I have not examined the evidence available for later times. About\nthis time a new factor is introduced by the revival of interest in\nheroic poetry.\n\nI would also call attention to the fact that the statistics are\nconfined to historical documents and do not include names (of moneyers)\nfound only on coins. My impression from a perusal of the material\ncollected in Mr Searle's _Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum_ is that this\nelement will not appreciably affect the statistics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 75, l. 26 ff. Reference should have been given to the Exeter\nGnomic Verses, 89 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 110. On the subject discussed at the beginning of this chapter the\nreader is referred to Heusler, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1909, p. 937\nff., and Van Gennep, _La Formation des L\u00e9gendes_. The definitions given\nabove may not be entirely satisfactory--mention should perhaps have\nbeen made of the 'Ortssage'--but they will probably be found sufficient\nfor the purpose of this book.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 116 ff. On this subject reference should be made to Panzer,\n_Studien zur germ. Sagengeschichte_, I _Beowulf_, which contains\na careful and detailed examination of the M\u00e4rchen in question.\nUnfortunately I have not been able to use this work, as it did not\ncome into my hands until the first eight chapters of my book were in\nprint. In regard to those points on which I have chiefly laid stress,\nviz. that Beowulf is to be identified with Biarki and that he appears\nto be a historical character, Prof. Panzer's views (pp. 368 ff., 390\nff.) are practically identical with those expressed above. On the\nother hand he holds that the story of Biarki--the portion dealing with\nhis origin, as well as the adventure at Leire--comes from the same\nfolk-tale as the story of Beowulf and Grendel. His theory as a whole\ngives rise to important questions regarding the origin and distribution\nof folk-tales, which cannot be discussed here. Thus I should like to\nknow how far the same folk-tale can arise independently in different\nregions. Again, the M\u00e4rchen with which he deals seem to me to be highly\ncomposite structures, which I should be inclined to regard rather\nas aggregations of folk-tales. This is true more especially of the\nelements common to the stories of Beowulf, Grettir and Ormr, the close\naffinities of which have been brought into a much clearer light by\nProf. Panzer's researches. It may be that the elaborate story which\nunderlies all three was treated in poetry at an early date; but I see\nno more reason now than before for believing that the two Icelandic\nstories have been affected by any poem dealing with Beowulf himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 117 f. It is perhaps worth noting that Ormr St\u00f3rolfsson was\nrelated to Grettir, both being descended from H\u00e6ngr, the great-grandson\nof that Ketill H\u00e6ngr of Hrafnista whose story is largely taken up with\nadventures with trolls and i\u00f6tnar.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 124. For the death of Frotho III the reader may be referred to\nOlrik, _Danmarks Heltedigtning_, II p. 239 ff.; and for the connection\nbetween this character and the _Beaw_ of the genealogies to (_ib._)\np. 249 ff. As stated above (p. 126, note) I should prefer the form\n_Beowa_, for earlier _Biowi_ (as _Aella_ for earlier _Aelli_; cf. p.\n64). The latter form may be connected with _Byggvir_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 139 ff. On the Nibelungenlied reference may be made to Prof.\nR\u00f6the's article _Nibelungias und Waltharius_ (_S.-B. d. Akad. zu\nBerlin_, 1909, p. 649).\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 161, l. 1 f. The references to Sarus (accidentally omitted here)\nare Olympiodoros, p. 449 (ed. Niebuhr), Jordanes, _Romana_, \u00a7 321\n(_Mon. Germ., Auct. Ant._ V 41).\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 180, l. 20 ff. It has rightly been pointed out to me by Mr C.\nA. Scutt that, if the statement attributed by Herodotus (VI 3) to\nDemaratos is to be trusted, the average length of a generation in\nthe Spartan royal families may reasonably be expected to be somewhat\nlonger than elsewhere. Yet in point of fact this is not borne out by\nthe evidence available for the historical period (from the fifth to the\nthird centuries), nor yet by that of the genealogies for the period\nbetween Theopompos and Cleomenes, if the commonly accepted date for the\nfirst Messenian war is correct.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 185, l. 20 ff. Recent discoveries have rendered it probable that\ncremation was practised in Crete in very early times. Up to now however\nall the evidence apparently comes from the Early Minoan period, so\nthat the point upon which Dr Mackenzie lays stress remains practically\nunaffected.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 190, l. 2 ff. I regret that when this was written I had not\nobserved that Prof. Meyer accepts the statement of Xanthos with regard\nto the Phrygian invasion. On this question see p. 437, note 2.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 198, l. 27 ff. On this subject reference may be made to Shewan,\n_The Lay of Dolon_, which appeared too late for me to be able to make\nuse of it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 244, note 2. A different view is taken by Allen, _Jour. Hell. St._\nXXX 312 ff., where a full discussion of the Trojan Catalogue--as also\nof the Achaean Catalogue (_ib._, p. 292 ff.)--will be found. Mr Allen's\nconclusions differ greatly from the views expressed above.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 265, note 3. In the poem Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0 (cf. p. 12) the genealogy\nof \u00d3ttarr the son of Innsteinn is traced back to a certain Svanr\nhinn rau\u00f0i. The same genealogy occurs in the document _Hversu Noregr\nbyg\u00f0ist_ (published in the Fornaldar S\u00f6gur Nor\u00f0rlanda, II p. 6 in Dr\nValdimar Asmundarson's edition); and here Svanr hinn rau\u00f0i is said\nto be the son of Finn\u00e1lfr by Svanhildr the daughter of Day (_Dagr\nDellingsson_) and the Sun (_S\u00f3l, d\u00f3ttir Mundilfara_). This document\nhowever belongs to a very late period--the close of the fourteenth\ncentury--and I know of no earlier authority for the first part of the\ngenealogy.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 285, note 1, l. 4. For \"I p. 687\" read \"I ii p. 687,\" and\nsimilarly in all subsequent references to the second edition of Prof.\nMeyer's _Geschichte des Altertums_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPage 313, note 1. For \"Pasi\u0107\" read \"Pavi\u0107\" (and so also in the notes on\nthe following pages).\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[670] As shown by Dr Richter's lists (pp. 9 ff., 24 ff. and 13 ff., 27\nf.).\n\n[671] So far as I can see the only argument for this inconsistency\nwhich Prof. Olrik brings forward is the statement (Vol. I, p. 16;\ncf. Vol. II, p. 38, note 1, and p. 39, note 1) that the fight at the\nmarriage precedes Beowulf's visit to the king's hall. This however\nseems to mean that the present tense, which is used throughout the\nepisode (nearly a score of examples), must be taken as a historic\npresent--a construction which is rarely or never found elsewhere in\nAnglo-Saxon heroic poetry. In Beowulf only one instance (v. 1879) is\ncited by Nader (_Anglia_, X 547), and this is clearly erroneous. A\npossible case does occur in v. 1923 (_wuna\u00f0_); but most recent editors\neither emend (to _wunade_) or regard the passage as a speech.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n Achaia 174, 282, 289.\n\n Achaioi (Achaeans) 176 f., etc., (in Crete) 177 f., 186 f.\n\n Achilles 175, 222, 250, 263 f., 269, 275 ff., 288 f., 295 f., 462.\n\n A\u00f0ils (cf. Eadgils) 17, 20, 31, 153 f.\n\n Aelfwine (see Alboin).\n\n Aeolic element in Homeric poems 208, 215, 273, 290 f.\n\n Aeolic peoples, etc. 209, 272 ff., 295 f.\n\n Aeolis 210 f., 227, 231 ff., 240.\n\n Aeschylus 171, 237 ff.\n\n Agamemnon (i) of Cyme 227, 231.\n\n Agamemnon (ii) of Mycenae 174, 222, 237 ff., 274 ff., 288 f.,\n 302, 382 ff.\n\n Aias (i), son of Oileus 175, 302.\n\n Aias (ii), son of Telamon 175, 202, 204, 302 f.\n\n Aithiopis 170, 197, 236, 244.\n\n Alboin 26, 28, 462.\n\n Alcinoos 384.\n\n Alcman 215, 222, 266.\n\n Alcuin 41, 73, 79 f., 465.\n\n Aldhelm 80.\n\n \u00c1li (cf. Onela) 20, 153 f.\n\n alliances 373 f., 387 ff.\n\n Amalaswintha 371 f.\n\n Ammianus Marcellinus 23, 366.\n\n Amyclai 240, 302.\n\n Angli 31 f., 51, 61, 97 f., 376, 405.\n\n Ansgar 255 f.\n\n Aphrodite 416 ff.\n\n Apollo 250 f., 416 ff.\n\n Arcadian 284 f., 287, 436 f., 453.\n\n Archilochos 194, 216, 226 f.\n\n Ares 416 ff.\n\n Argo 196, 245, 261.\n\n Argos 274 ff.\n\n Artemis 416.\n\n \u00c1sgar\u00f0r 400.\n\n Asia Minor (ethnography of) 178, 245 ff.\n\n assembly 368 f., 382 f.\n\n Athene 250 f., 416 ff.\n\n Athens 171, 216 ff., 381, 421.\n\n Atli (cf. Attila) 13 f., 22, 146 f.\n\n Attila 22, 37 f., 84 f., 156.\n\n Audoin 371.\n\n\n Balder 112, 400 f., 405.\n\n Bavarian characters 31, 33.\n\n Bede 71, 73, 79, 350, 414 f.\n\n Bellerophon 212, 356 f., 380.\n\n Beowulf 1 f., 47 ff., etc.\n\n Bernlef 80, 87, 222, 243.\n\n Biarkam\u00e1l 17, 60, 121, 402.\n\n Biarki 119 ff., 466.\n\n birds (speaking) 98, 128.\n\n Bithynians 245 f.\n\n boasting 326 f.\n\n Boeotia 214, 283 f.\n\n Bosnian poetry 101 ff., 216, 429.\n\n Bragi 15, 58.\n\n Bravalla (Br\u00e1v\u00edk) 25, 251.\n\n bronze and iron 195, 199 f.\n\n Brunanburh (poem) 3, 34, 332.\n\n Brynhildr 7, 13 f., 140 ff., 163 ff.\n\n Burgundians 7, 22, 31, 351, 366.\n\n\n Cadmos 267.\n\n Caedmon 45 f., 79, 230, 465.\n\n Caesar 413, 427 ff.\n\n Callinos 171, 226 f.\n\n Caria, Carians 179, 245 ff.\n\n Cassiodorus 26, 85, 374.\n\n Catalogue (Hesiodic) 194, 197 f., 227, 242.\n\n Catalogue of Ships 174, 279, 289, 379, 387 f., 468.\n\n Chalon-sur-Sa\u00f4ne 162.\n\n chariot 203 f.\n\n Charles Martel 127 f.\n\n Chios 176, 209.\n\n Christian influence in Anglo-Saxon poems 47 ff., 241.\n\n Cilices 246 ff.\n\n Cinaithon 170.\n\n Circe 258 f., 419.\n\n class gradations 351 f., 364 f.\n\n Cleisthenes 193.\n\n Clovis 31, 85, 347.\n\n Clytaimnestra 229, 237 f.\n\n Cnossos 178, 311.\n\n comitatus 328 f., 348, 350, 361 ff., 376 f., 443.\n\n council 369 ff., 383 ff.\n\n cremation 53 ff., 397 f., 410 f., 422 f., 467.\n\n Crete 177 f., 184 ff., 311 ff., 435, 450 ff., 467.\n\n Cumbrian history 108 f., 430, 446 f.\n\n Cyme 214.\n\n Cynewulf (i), poet 45.\n\n Cynewulf (ii), king of Wessex 349, 351.\n\n Cynurioi 460.\n\n Cypria 170, 197, 234 ff., 244, 248.\n\n Cyzicos 196.\n\n\n Danes 1 f., 15, 17, 20 f., 24 f., 29, 31, etc.\n\n Danish heroes 1 f., 17, 20, 31, etc.\n\n Demodocos 221, 234.\n\n Deor 3, 56, 81, 92.\n\n Dietrich von Bern (cf. Theodric) 5, 7 ff., 23, 154 f., 311 f.,\n 333, 452.\n\n Diomedeia 250 f.\n\n Diomedes 175, 278, 379 f., 419.\n\n divine parentage 264, 357.\n\n divinity of kings 367, 381 f.\n\n Dodona 417, 437.\n\n Doloneia 198 f., 298.\n\n Dorians 174, 178 f., 184, 186 f., 459.\n\n dragons 122 ff.\n\n Du\u0161an 430, 448, 461.\n\n\n Eadgils (i) 2, 27, 32, 56, 81.\n\n Eadgils (ii) (cf. A\u00f0ils) 2, 20, 153.\n\n Eastgota (see Ostrogotha).\n\n Edda (Older) 10 ff., 99 f., 232.\n\n Edda (Prose) 15.\n\n Edda theology 394, 400, 404, 406 f.\n\n Edwin 334, 349, 369.\n\n Egill Skallagr\u00edmsson 16, 226.\n\n Egypt 184 f., 187 ff., 266, 455.\n\n Einhard 5, 62, 243.\n\n Eireksm\u00e1l 15, 257.\n\n Ekkehard 6, 57, 162.\n\n Eormenric (Ermenrich) 2 f., 8 ff., 23, 37, 157, 347.\n\n Epeiros 437, 460.\n\n Epigonoi 171.\n\n eponymous heroes 131 f., 267 ff., 301.\n\n Eratosthenes 179.\n\n Eric the Victorious 252 f.\n\n Etruscans 449 f.\n\n Etzel (cf. Atli) 7 f., 22, etc.\n\n Exodus (Anglo-Saxon) 45, 464.\n\n Eyvindr Skaldaspillir 15 f., 91, 254.\n\n\n family pride 327 f.\n\n festivals 369, 383.\n\n fictitious names 44, 159 ff., 299.\n\n Finn 2, 20, 26, 42, 333.\n\n folk-tales 110 ff., 258 ff., 264 ff., 466 f.\n\n Franks 31, 39, 337, 343, 345 f., 352, 368, 460.\n\n Frey 11, 15, 125, 253, 367, 394 f., 399 ff., 404.\n\n Freyia 11 f., 400, 402.\n\n Fria (cf. Frigg) 115, 408.\n\n Frigg 394, 403, 405.\n\n Frisians 2, 31, 80, 89 f., 370.\n\n Fr\u00f3\u00f0i 15, 27, 123 ff., 467.\n\n\n Gaulish heroic poetry 427 f.\n\n Gaulish history 427 ff., 449 f.\n\n Gautreks Saga 239, 385, 403.\n\n Geatas (G\u00f6tar) 1 f., 31 f., 35, 119 f., etc.\n\n Gelimer 86, 94.\n\n genealogies, Anglo-Saxon 42, 408 f.\n\n genealogies, Greek 179 ff., 267.\n\n Genesis (Anglo-Saxon) 211, 464.\n\n Genseric 369 f., 460.\n\n Geruthus 258 f.\n\n Glaucos 341.\n\n glory, love of 87 f., 325 f., 329.\n\n glossaries, Anglo-Saxon 68, 70.\n\n Gl\u00famr 253.\n\n G\u00f6ndul 254, 263.\n\n Gormo 258 ff.\n\n Gothic heroic poetry 10, 62 f., 86 f.\n\n Goths 23, 26, 31 ff., etc.\n\n Grendel 116 f., 121 f., 466.\n\n Grettis Saga 116 f., 467.\n\n Gu\u00f0r\u00fan 13 f., 37, 146 f., 152 f., 156, 163 ff.\n\n Gundobad 22, 338 f.\n\n Gunnarr (see Guthhere)\n\n Gunnlaugs Saga 91 f.\n\n Guntharius, Gunther (see Guthhere).\n\n Guthhere (Gunnarr, Gunther) 6 f., 14, 21 f., 138 f., 141 ff.,\n 146 f., 163, 165.\n\n Gylfaginning 229.\n\n\n Haakon, earl of Lade 16, 91, 252 ff., 401 f.\n\n Haakon I, king of Norway 15, 91, 254, 263.\n\n Hades 422 f.\n\n Hadingus 125 f., 260.\n\n Haethcyn 337, 346.\n\n Hagbar\u00f0r 17, 27, 333.\n\n Hagena (H\u00f6gni) (i), 6 f., 14, 137 f., 140 ff., 161 f.\n\n Hagena (H\u00f6gni) (ii), see He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni.\n\n H\u00e1konarm\u00e1l 15, 97, 254 f.\n\n Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli 14, 37, 156 f., 160 f., 333 (cf. Sarus and Ammius).\n\n Haraldr Hildit\u00f6nn 17, 24 f., 251.\n\n Harold the Fair-haired 15, 91, 296.\n\n H\u00e1vam\u00e1l 11, 229, 397.\n\n heathen elements in Beowulf 52 f.\n\n Hector 269 ff.\n\n He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni 16, 21, 27 f., 112, 135 ff. 333 (cf. Hetel and\n Hagen).\n\n Helen 249, 265 ff., 337.\n\n Helios (cattle of) 259.\n\n Hellenic peoples 285 ff.\n\n Hephaistos 416 f.\n\n Hera 416 ff.\n\n Heracleidai, Return of the 174, 180, 331.\n\n Heremod 20, 60, 366.\n\n Herhor 312.\n\n Hermanaricus 10, 19, etc. (cf. Eormenric).\n\n Hermes 416.\n\n Heruli 346, 372 f., 407, 411, 445.\n\n Hesiod 171 f., 194, 210, 214 f., 223, 228 ff., 242.\n\n Hetel and Hagen (cf. He\u00f0inn and H\u00f6gni) 8 f., 21, etc.\n\n Hildr (Hilde) 8 f., 16, 136 f.\n\n Hildebrandslied 5, 62, 94 f.\n\n Hi\u00f6rungav\u00e1gr 252.\n\n Hittites 178, 188 ff., 204 f., 246 f.\n\n Holmryge (cf. Rugii) 21, 28.\n\n Homer's birthplace 179, 208 f.\n\n Homeric armature 185 f., 191, 201 ff.\n\n Homeric civilisation 186 f., 199 ff., 434 ff.\n\n Hornklofi 15, 91.\n\n Hr\u00f3lfr Kraki 17, 20, 349.\n\n Hr\u00f3lfs Saga Kraka 120 ff.\n\n Hrothgar 1 f., 20, 83, 119, 354, 368, 462.\n\n Hygd, 372.\n\n Hygelac 1 f., 24, 341, 371 f.\n\n Hyndluli\u00f3\u00f0 12, 229, 402, 468.\n\n\n Iason 196.\n\n Iceland 10, 91 ff., 394 f., 398 ff.\n\n Idomeneus 175, 278, 306.\n\n Iliad 169, 174 f., 193 ff., etc.\n\n images 205.\n\n Ingeld (Ingellus, Ingialdr) 17, 36, 41 f., 61, 333, 465 f.\n\n inscriptions, Anglo-Saxon 69, 71, 214.\n\n inscriptions, Greek 209, 217, 280 f.\n\n international interest of heroic poetry 34 ff., 335 f.\n\n international relations 373 ff., 386 ff.\n\n invulnerability 129, 264.\n\n Ionian Isles 175, 274.\n\n Ionic cities 176, 236, 245 f.\n\n Ionic dialects 208 f., 215 ff., 283.\n\n Ionic language of Homeric poems 208, 215 ff., 273.\n\n I\u00f6rmunrekr 14, 19, etc. (cf. Eormenric).\n\n Iphigeneia 238 f.\n\n Istros 269 f.\n\n Ithaca 356, 378.\n\n\n J\u00f3msv\u00edkingar 251.\n\n Jordanes 10, 26, 62, 86 f., 157.\n\n\n kindred 344 ff., 353 ff., 442 f.\n\n kingship 227 f., 337, 366 ff., 378 ff.\n\n kinsman (slaying of) 346 ff., 359 f.\n\n Kossovo 313, 316 f., 429, 441.\n\n Kraljevi\u0107 Marko 441.\n\n Kriemhild (cf. Gu\u00f0r\u00fan) 7 f., 19, 145 ff., 163 ff.\n\n K\u00fbdr\u00fbn 8 f., 16, 19, 34, 135 f.\n\n\n Langobardi 9, 26, 62, 89, 115, 371 ff.\n\n Langobardic poetry 9 f., 115, 251, 413.\n\n Langres 31, 162.\n\n Lazar 313 ff.\n\n Leire 377, 403.\n\n Leleges 246, 248.\n\n Lesbos 176.\n\n Little Iliad 170, 197, 236.\n\n Ljubovi\u0107 (Beg) 103, 441.\n\n Locrians 269 f., 278, 357.\n\n Lo\u00f0br\u00f3k (Ragnarr) 17, 24, 295 f.\n\n Lokasenna 11, 83, 403.\n\n Loki 11, 403.\n\n Ludwigslied 5, 21, 34.\n\n Lycians 178 f., 212, 356 f.\n\n Lycurgos 334 f.\n\n\n Maldon (poem) 3, 97.\n\n manes-worship 398 f., 410, 421.\n\n Marcellinus Comes 37.\n\n marriage-customs 98, 205, 358 f.\n\n Menelaos 175, 277, 356, 362.\n\n Merenptah 187, 455.\n\n mercenary service 445 ff., 455 f., 461.\n\n Merovingians 345 f., 367.\n\n Merseburg charms 405, 408 f., 412.\n\n Midas 227.\n\n Miletos 176, 231, 246.\n\n Milo\u0161 Obili\u0107 314 f., 317 f.\n\n Mimnermos 332.\n\n Minoan civilisation 184 ff., 451 ff.\n\n Minos 310 ff.\n\n minstrelsy 79 ff., 221 ff.\n\n Murad I 313 ff.\n\n Mycenae 185, 240, 274, 308 f., 435, 450 ff.\n\n Mycenean civilisation 185 ff., 190 ff., 200 ff., 218, 233, 435\n ff., 451 f.\n\n\n Nekyia 197, 229, 257, 260 f.\n\n Nestor 175, 272, 277, 342.\n\n Nibelungenlied 7, 139 ff., 164 f., 224, 233, 393, 467.\n\n Niflungar (Nibelunge) 140 ff.\n\n Ni\u00f6r\u00f0r 399 f., 405.\n\n nobility 352, 364.\n\n north-west Greek 281 ff.\n\n Norway 10, 15, 30, 32 f., 59, 91 f., 100, 118 ff., 375, 395,\n 401, 404, 406 f.\n\n Nostoi 170, 197, 234 ff.\n\n\n Odoacer 23, 376 f.\n\n Odysseus 175, 258, 273 f., 288 f., 297 ff., 358, 363 f., 419.\n\n Odyssey 169, 175, 193 ff., etc.\n\n Offa (i), king of Angel 4, 17, 26 f., 126, 333, 376.\n\n Offa (ii), king of Mercia 126, 334 f.\n\n officials 352.\n\n Ohthere (\u00d3ttarr) 20, 153.\n\n Old Saxons 88 f., 370, 407, 410.\n\n Olympos 232, 416 f.\n\n Onela (cf. \u00c1li) 2, 20, 153 f., 347.\n\n Ongentheo 2, 153, 340.\n\n Orestes 237.\n\n Orms Th\u00e1ttr Storolfssonar 117 f., 467.\n\n Ostrogotha 10, 21, 26.\n\n Othin 11, 13, 114, 251, 253 ff., 394 ff. (cf. Woden).\n\n \u00d3ttarr (i), son of Innsteinn 12, 402, 468.\n\n \u00d3ttarr (ii), father of A\u00f0ils (see Ohthere).\n\n\n Paphlagonia 245.\n\n Paris 222, 229, 269 ff.\n\n Patroclos 328 f., 361 f.\n\n patronymics 355.\n\n Paulus Diaconus 25 f., 372 f.\n\n Peisistratos 216, 256.\n\n Pelasgic Argos 274, 278 ff.\n\n Pelasgoi 177, 186, 248, 285 ff.\n\n Penelope 358 f.\n\n Pentaur (Poem of) 247, 455.\n\n Periandros 261, 422.\n\n personal allegiance 348 ff., 361 ff.\n\n personal names (heroic) 42 ff., 64 ff., 231.\n\n Phaeacians 297, 299 f., 384 f.\n\n Phaistos 268, 311.\n\n Phemios 221, 234.\n\n Philistines (see Pulesatha).\n\n Phocis 283.\n\n Phoinix 279, 360 f., 363.\n\n Phthia 279, 286.\n\n Phthiotis 176, 280, 282, 286 f.\n\n place-names (heroic) 43 f.\n\n Poseidon 416 ff.\n\n Polyphemos 258.\n\n Praisos 178, 213.\n\n priests 367, 380.\n\n Priscus 37, 62, 84.\n\n Procopius 86, 97 ff., 128 ff., etc.\n\n Proitos 212, 452.\n\n Pulesatha 188 ff., 455 f.\n\n Pylos 277, 451.\n\n\n Quedlinburg Annals 6, 9, 23, 37, 80.\n\n\n Rabenschlacht 8, 23.\n\n Radiger 98, 370 f.\n\n Rameses II 188, 247, 455.\n\n Rameses III 185, 188 f., 455.\n\n Ravenna 23, 452.\n\n Reginsm\u00e1l, F\u00e1fnism\u00e1l, Sigrdr\u00edfum\u00e1l 13, 145, 235.\n\n riding 204.\n\n Roman influence 444 ff.\n\n royal marriages 373 f., 386 f.\n\n Rugii 28, 31, 134 (cf. Holmryge).\n\n Russian heroic poetry 104 f.\n\n\n Salamis 193, 302 f.\n\n sanctuaries 205 f., 400 f., 406 f.\n\n Sarpedon 305, 357.\n\n Sarus (i) 160 f., 377, 467.\n\n Sarus (ii) and Ammius 10, 14, etc. (cf. Ham\u00f0ir and S\u00f6rli).\n\n Saxo Grammaticus 17, 20, 25, etc.\n\n Scheria 379, 384.\n\n Scyld 75, 131 f., 373.\n\n Servian (Christian) heroic poetry 103 f., 313 ff., 429 f.\n\n Servian history 313 ff., 430, 447 ff.\n\n Sety I 204.\n\n Seyfridslied 7, 122, 140 f., 144 f.\n\n Shardina 188 ff., 201, 451, 454 ff.\n\n shield 201 f.\n\n Shield of Heracles 169, 175.\n\n Sidonius Apollinaris 85.\n\n Siegfried 7, 19, 31, 33, 139 ff., 164 (cf. Sigur\u00f0r).\n\n Sigarr 17, 21.\n\n Sigmundr (Sigemund) 2, 16, 59 f., 114, 122 ff., 142, 251, 297.\n\n Sigur\u00f0r 12 ff., 59, 114, 139 ff., 163 ff., 263 f., 333 (cf.\n Siegfried).\n\n Sigur\u00f0r Hringr 17, 24 f., 251.\n\n single combats 339 f.\n\n Smyrna 208 ff., 332.\n\n Sparta 179 ff., 184, 331.\n\n Spercheios 206, 279 ff., 287, 417, 419.\n\n spoils 340 f.\n\n stages in history of heroic poetry 94 ff.\n\n Starka\u00f0r 77, 36, 92 f.\n\n Stesichoros 171, 239 f., 266, 310.\n\n Strassburg, battle of 340, 349.\n\n succession 356.\n\n suitors of Penelope 300 f., 363.\n\n Sunilda 10, 160 f. (cf. Svanhildr).\n\n supernatural beings 114 ff., 250 ff.\n\n supernatural properties 128 f., 262.\n\n Svanhildr 14, 16, 37, 157 (cf. Sunilda).\n\n Swedes (Sweon, Sv\u00edar) 2, 15, 20, 31, 153 f., 367 ff., 399.\n\n\n Tacitus 78, 349, 368 f., 413.\n\n Tchakaray (Zakar) 188 f.\n\n Telemachos 242 f.\n\n Tell-el-Amarna 188, 192, 455.\n\n Thebais 171.\n\n Theodberht 23 f., 462.\n\n Theodric 3, 19, 23, 25, 29 ff, 154 f., 373, 461 (cf. Dietrich\n von Bern).\n\n Thersites 228.\n\n Theseus 266.\n\n Thessaly 232, 269 ff.\n\n Thetis 264, 418 f.\n\n Thi\u00f0reks Saga af Bern 9, 57, 134, 138 f., 145 f.\n\n Thi\u00f3\u00f0olfr 15, 91.\n\n Thor 11, 253, 394 ff., 404.\n\n Th\u00f3rger\u00f0r H\u00f6lgabr\u00fa\u00f0r 252, 401 f.\n\n Thorkillus 258 f.\n\n Thraco-Phrygian peoples 178 f., 190, 457 f.\n\n Thucydides 286, 293, 308 ff.\n\n Tiryns 452, 454.\n\n tragic poets 171 f.\n\n tribal heroes 267 ff.\n\n Troy (Hissarlik) 200, 294 f., 309.\n\n Tyrtaios 226, 331.\n\n\n Uffo 17, 61.\n\n Unferth 159, 347.\n\n Upsala 154, 206, 368, 377, 399 f., 407.\n\n\n Valhalla (Valh\u00f6ll) 254, 396 ff., 410 ff.\n\n Valkyries 254, 397, 411 f.\n\n Vandals 31, 86, 115, 369, 371, 445, 460.\n\n Vellekla 16, 254.\n\n Venantius Fortunatus 85.\n\n vengeance 344 f., 353.\n\n Vidigoia 27, 62 (cf. Widia).\n\n Viking Age 25, 90 ff., 100, 251 ff., 342, 404, 406 f.\n\n Virgil 74 ff.\n\n V\u00f6lsunga Saga 16, 145 ff., 164, 251.\n\n V\u00f6lundarkvi\u00f0a 12, 132, 134 f.\n\n V\u00f6lusp\u00e1 11, 229.\n\n\n Waldhere (Waltharius) 2, 6, 38 f., 57 f., 137 ff., 151 f., 161\n f., 333, 341, 376 f.\n\n Waltharius (see Waldhere).\n\n Wanderer (poem) 3, 92, 350.\n\n Warni 97 f.\n\n Warrior Vase 185, 191, 451 f.\n\n Weland 3, 9, 12, 132 ff.\n\n Welsh heroic poetry 105 ff.\n\n Weoxtan 20, 159, 329 f., 340, 347, 350.\n\n wergelds 345, 352, 354, 365.\n\n Widia 27, 132, 135 (cf. Vidigoia, Witege, Wudga).\n\n Widsith 2, 20 f., 26, 56, 81, 87 f.\n\n Widsith (name) 43 f.\n\n Wiglaf 159, 328 f., 349.\n\n Willebrord 259.\n\n Witege 8 f., 19, 27, 31, 132, 135 (cf. Widia).\n\n Woden (Wodan) 115, 405, 408 ff. (cf. Othin).\n\n Wolfdietrich 8, 23, 155.\n\n women in the Heroic Age 337 f., 372.\n\n Worms 6 f., 146.\n\n writing 211 ff.\n\n Wudga 19 f., 27, 331 (cf. Widia).\n\n\n Xanten 7, 31.\n\n Xanthos 437 f., 467.\n\n\n Ynglinga Saga 16, 367, 397, 399.\n\n Yngvi 367, 405.\n\n\n Zakar (see Tchakaray).\n\n Zeus 416 ff.\n\n Zeus Agamemnon 381.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber's Notes:\n\n\n Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were\n silently corrected.\n\n Anachronistic and non-standard spellings retained as printed.\n\n Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.\n\n Bold markup is enclosed in =equals=.","title":"The Heroic Age","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":194298}