CHAPTER XIV.
FICTION IN THE HOMERIC POEMS.
We have now to consider briefly how far the use of fiction, i.e. of conscious, deliberate invention, was permitted in the composition of Greek heroic poetry. This question gave us considerable difficulty when we were discussing the Teutonic poems. It is assuredly not less difficult here. The higher artistic level of the Greek poems cannot but pre-dispose us in favour of the view that their use of fiction is of a more advanced type. This expectation is fully realised in the elaborate presentation of many of the scenes, whether the actors be human beings who may or may not have taken part in the events described, or divine beings whose mythical origin no one will dispute. In the σύστασις τῶν πραγμάτων the art of poetic invention is developed to a high degree of perfection.
The chief difference between our present problem and the one which we had to consider in Chapter VIII lies in the fact that here we are entirely without that contemporary historical evidence which enables us to recognise some characters or events in nearly all the Teutonic poems. The way lies open therefore for regarding the whole story of the siege of Troy as a product of fiction; and this is a view which many modern scholars have adopted. For an example we can scarcely do better than quote the words of the late Sir R. C. Jebb (_Introduction to Homer_, p. 147): "The tale of Troy, as we have it in Homer, is essentially a poetic creation; and the poet is the sole witness." The same scholar was prepared to grant that "some memorable capture of a town in the Troad had probably been made by Greek warriors"; but, he adds, "beyond this we cannot safely go." This attitude is doubtless perfectly correct from the historian's point of view. But if we approach the problem from the ethnologist's side we cannot rest satisfied with an attitude of scepticism owing to the absence of historical evidence. Our duty includes the question how far we are justified in admitting the use of fiction. The Iliad would still be a great monument of human genius even if all the characters and events in it could be proved to be historical. But if it is wholly, or almost wholly, a work of fiction we shall have to conclude that the Homeric poets had developed the inventive faculty to a degree which has scarcely been equalled even in our own days. That is a conclusion which we shall do well to adopt only after careful consideration, seeing that we are dealing with the earliest monument of European literature. Scepticism is required in this direction therefore just as much as in the other.
At the outset we are confronted by two considerations which amply justify this attitude. The first is the evidence of the Teutonic poems. Here, as we have seen, myth and folk-tale both play their parts, the latter often a very important part. But we have no proof that any one of the stories is a product of conscious fiction. Wherever we can put it to the test, the setting is found to be historical, at least in the earlier forms of the stories. In medieval poetry we meet with many fictitious stories of wars waged by imaginary kings of, let us say, Byzantium or Britain. But in poetry which is entirely free from scholastic influence, such as the old heroic poems or the poems of the Viking Age, we shall look in vain for trustworthy examples. The same remark is probably true of Slavonic and Cumbrian heroic poetry.
The other consideration is still more serious. It is the opinion of the ancient Greeks themselves. Here again we may quote Sir R. C. Jebb's work (p. 84): "They held that his events and his persons were, in the main, real.... Thucydides differs from Herodotus in bringing down the Homeric heroes more nearly to the level of common men. But the basis of fact in Homer is fully as real to Thucydides as to Herodotus." The current hypothesis assumes that both were deceived, and with them the universal consensus of educated Greek opinion. But is not this a strange assumption? Those who hold that the Homeric poems are wholly the work of one author may cherish the belief that this person was so gifted as to be able to perpetrate a hoax upon his countrymen which in their most enlightened days they never succeeded in detecting. But I do not see how any such idea can be reconciled with the theory of evolution. The story was invented, we must presume, by the first poet and elaborated by his successors. Were these latter persons cognisant of the deception? If not, we must regard their contributions as negligible; and consequently we are brought back virtually to the theory of single authorship. And yet no one will suggest that the poets of several generations were accomplices in such a deception. The only alternative then, which remains, is that the poets invented and elaborated a romance, which they did not intend to be taken seriously. How greatly then has the history of Greek thought been misunderstood! It appears now that the period between the ninth and the fifth centuries was characterised not by intellectual emancipation but by the growth of credulity.
In view of these considerations the burden of proof must be held to lie with those who hold that the story is fictitious. Until such proof is forthcoming it seems to me that the only reasonable course is to follow the opinion of the ancients, except in so far as we have good reason for believing that they were mistaken. The ancients not only accepted the siege of Troy as a historical fact; they were prepared also to point out the site of the city. The correctness of this identification was indeed disputed by Demetrios of Scepsis, a native antiquary of the second century, who fixed upon another site, some four miles away; while modern scholars until recently believed that both were wrong. This is why in the passage quoted above Sir R. C. Jebb used the expression "a city in the Troad." But about five or six years after the publication of his book the traditional site was fully vindicated by the excavations of Dr Dörpfeld, which brought to light the remains of a fortress dating, approximately at least, from the period indicated by the story. It was made clear also that this fortress had been destroyed, presumably by enemies. That the destroyers were Greeks could not of course be proved by the excavations. But the evidence of the poems in this respect is confirmed by the fact that the district was inhabited by Greeks in later times[451].
It is held by many scholars that the story of the siege of Troy is a reflection of the Aeolic colonisation of the Asiatic coast. We have already discussed the principle underlying this theory and found no evidence in its favour. But it does not follow from this that the two events were unconnected. One of the most famous stories[452] recorded by Scandinavian tradition is that of the expedition to England which was undertaken by the sons of Lothbrok for the purpose of exacting vengeance for their father's death. Now we have an account of this invasion from a contemporary historical work (the Saxon Chronicle), which gives the names of two of the princes (Inwaer and Healfdene), as well as that of the Northumbrian king Aella against whom the expedition was directed. We know also that Lothbrok's sons were by no means contented with the overthrow of Aella; that on the contrary they ravaged the greater part of England. Long after they were all dead or departed the eastern half of the country remained Scandinavian territory. According to the Iliad Achilles did not confine his energies to Troy; he is said to have ravaged Lesbos and several places in the country round the Gulf of Adramyttion. Is there any valid reason for denying that the Greek occupation of these lands may have originated in such events? We need not suppose of course that the conquered lands were fully occupied at once. But the first settlers may well have secured enough to serve as a refuge for those of their countrymen who fled from the Thessalian invasion, probably no long time afterwards. A good parallel is furnished by the Scandinavian settlements in the British Isles, which served as a retreat for many Norwegians who refused to bow to the encroachments of Harold the Fair-haired.
The Greek settlements in this region were Aeolic, a fact due probably, as we have said, to the Thessalian invasion. But Achilles was an Achaean, and the same is true of most of the other chief heroes. The Iliad does not represent Troy as being attacked merely 'by Greeks,' but by an army gathered together from nearly all parts of Greece. This is one of the features in the story to which objection has been taken most generally. We may grant freely that no parallel for such an undertaking is to be found in historical times. Indeed, the objection itself contains a weak point here; for from all that we know of the earliest historical period it is scarcely credible that such an idea could have suggested itself, even in a work of fiction. On the other hand in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries the monuments of Rameses II, Merenptah and Rameses III give us information of expeditions which were on at least as large a scale and covered much greater distances. We have no reason for doubting that such an undertaking was possible also in the eleventh century.
But if the expedition itself is nothing incredible in such a period, what shall we say with regard to its motive? The reason assigned by the poem--that it was brought about by Paris' escapade--is one of those features which have been put aside by modern scholars as unworthy of consideration. This attitude is due partly to the application of modern political theories to a state of society in which they are quite out of place. With this question we shall have to deal in the following chapter. But it is due still more to the absurd hallucination that a story of abduction must have originated in the 'hypostasis' of natural phenomena. According to Scandinavian tradition the expedition of Lothbrok's sons was inspired by a purely personal motive--the desire to exact vengeance for their father's death. But in the Heroic Age itself we have from a strictly contemporary authority (cf. p. 97 f.) the story of the great expedition of the Angli against the Warni, which was caused by a breach of promise of marriage.
It appears then on examination that the central feature of the story, namely the destruction of Troy, rests upon fact, while the other main features gain in probability the more one takes into account the conditions of the age and the analogies furnished by similar stories elsewhere. These considerations tend to support the view that the employment of fiction is to be seen rather in the presentation than in the conception of the story. But the term 'presentation' here, just as in Chapter VIII, must be interpreted in a very liberal sense.
What has been said above applies of course properly only to the Iliad. With the Odyssey the case is quite otherwise. In the first place we have to note that the ancients themselves took a different view with regard to this poem--at all events that part of it which relates to the hero's wanderings. The credibility of the various incidents was frequently and warmly debated; but many of them were defended only by an allegorical interpretation. Then again the conditions are similar to those in which we find the most pronounced use of fiction in early Teutonic poetry. Sigemund is expressly said to have been alone when he attacked the dragon, and most of Beowulf's marvellous exploits are performed when he is either alone or with a single companion. The motif of the lonely wanderer in distant lands is not prominent in the remains of our poetry, but from what is said of Sigemund in Beow. 876 ff. we can scarcely doubt that it would have been utilised for the exercise of the inventive faculty.
Now we have seen (p. 258 ff.) that the hero's narrative in Od. IX-XII is evidently derived from an accumulation of folk-tales. Here the art of fiction is shown chiefly in the poet's adaptation of this material to his own purpose. But there are other parts of the poem--notably the preceding three books (VI-VIII)--which obviously require a different explanation. It is frequently assumed that the Phaeacians are wholly a creation of the poet's fancy. Without going so far as this[453] we may seriously doubt whether they were a Greek people and whether there was any foundation in history or tradition for the account given here--with a quite exceptional amount of detail--of their princes, their city and institutions. If this part of the story is to be regarded as fiction it is certainly a more elaborate type of fiction than anything which we meet with in the early heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples. But the false stories told by Odysseus in the latter part of the poem at all events go far towards showing that such fiction was not beyond the power of Homeric poets.
According to our explanation the extensive use of fiction in the story of Odysseus is due to the fact that in this case the poet or poets had a free hand, whereas elsewhere, more particularly in the Iliad, they were bound down by tradition. It is not to be overlooked however that the Iliad itself contains many incidents which may similarly be regarded as products of invention--additions to the story which did not conflict with anything that had been 'handed down.' As a likely instance of this kind we may cite the Doloneia. But since we can seldom or never get beyond a hypothesis with such cases, it will be more profitable, I think, now to turn our attention to another question, namely whether the use of fiction also included the invention of characters--and if so to what extent.
In our consideration of the Teutonic stories we came to the conclusion that there was no really satisfactory evidence for such invention. In the Homeric poems the evidence is much stronger. We will first take the case of names which appear to have been coined with an obvious meaning. A good example occurs in Od. VIII 111 ff., where the Phaeacian athletes are enumerated:
ὦρτο μὲν Ἀκρόνεώς τε καὶ Ὠκύαλος καὶ Ἐλατρεὺς Ναυτεύς τε Πρυμνεύς τε καὶ Ἀγχίαλος καὶ Ἐρετμεὺς Ποντεύς τε Πρωρεύς τε, Θόων Ἀναβησίνεώς τε Ἀμφίαλός θ' υἱὸς Πολυνήου Τεκτονίδαο· ἂν δὲ καὶ Εὐρύαλος βροτολοιγῷ ἶσος Ἄρηι, Ναυβολίδης θ', κ.τ.λ.
Other Phaeacians have names of the same type, e.g. Ναυσίθοος, Ναυσικάα, Ἅλιος, Κλυτόνηος, Ἐχένηος, Ποντόνοος. In such a case as this the poet can scarcely have intended to deceive his audience. Indeed the principle is clearly admitted in another passage (XXIV 305), where Odysseus in a false story describes himself as υἱὸς Ἀφείδαντος Πολυπημονίδαο ἄνακτος. We need not doubt then that other names are constructed on the same plan, e.g. that of the minstrel, Φήμιος Τερπιάδης, perhaps also those of the shipowner, Νοήμων son of Φρόνιος, and Menelaos' pilot, Φρόντις Ὀνητορίδης. Similar cases may be found also in the Iliad[454], e.g. (V 59 ff.) Φέρεκλον ... Τέκτονος υἱὸν Ἁρμονίδεω, ὃς χερσὶν ἐπίστατο δαίδαλα πάντα τεύχειν, or the name of a Trojan herald (XVII 323 f.) Περίφαντι Ἠπυτίδῃ, probably also the spy Δόλων Εὐμήδεος υἱός (X 314). This list of course makes no claim to be exhaustive. But on the whole it can hardly be said that the type is really common in either poem, except the section dealing with the Phaeacians.
It is far more difficult to form an opinion with regard to the origin of characters whose names bear no such obvious mark. Few probably would be inclined to doubt that the names of Helen's handmaidens (Od. IV 123 ff.) were coined by the poet. But what shall we say with regard to the suitors of Penelope[455]? The argument may not be a sound one, but it is not easy to see under what conditions historical names could have been preserved in such a connection. And again, what about the numerous names which figure in the ἀνδροκτασίαι? Even though many of the names do recur again and again, their number is surprising[456]. It is difficult to doubt that the poets gave free rein to their inventive faculties in such scenes.
But what limits are we to set to this process? If we regard the chief heroes themselves as products of fiction we shall be involved in much the same difficulties as if we interpreted the story as a whole in this way. In a sense indeed the difficulties will be increased; for it is scarcely conceivable that a heroic story should come into existence without heroes[457]. No one can reasonably doubt that the list of Phaeacian athletes is the invention of one man[458]. In the case of Penelope's suitors this is not so clear. Yet personally I cannot understand the Odyssey if it is not, in its present form, largely the work of an individual brain, however much it may have utilised and even incorporated older matter. This 'redactor' or 'author' or whatever he may be called may well have invented the names of most of the suitors; they are not essential to the story. But how can any such explanation be applied to the heroes of the siege of Troy? These were not obscure chieftains in a distant group of islands without external connections. Many of them are represented as rulers of what were once certainly the chief states in Greece, and they were universally recognised as historical persons from the earliest times of which we have any record. In some cases they were even honoured with worship, and distinguished families claimed to be descended from them. Mythical characters, such as Scyld or Dardanos, may come to be regarded as historical. But these are products of many minds rather than of one, and of reflection rather than imagination. Their personification is a gradual process, and even when it is accomplished they figure only in the background of heroic stories, without any definite individual characterisation. The hypothesis which we are now testing has no relation to such figures as these--for Agamemnon, Achilles and their companions are not eponymous heroes. If they are creations of one man's imagination we must ask how this person, however gifted he may have been, succeeded in passing off his romance as history. On the other hand if they were gradually 'evolved' by a succession of poets we must ask at what stage and by what process so great a misunderstanding of their real character originated.
It is a great assumption that every local record relating to the heroes of the Trojan War owes its origin, directly or indirectly, to the influence of Homeric poetry; and yet that is what is involved by the hypothesis under discussion. There is no doubt that heroic poetry can influence local tradition in an age given to antiquarian speculation; but where shall we find any parallel for such a result as this? Pausanias (II 16. 5) states that the tombs of Agamemnon and his household were to be seen at Mycenae. It is likely enough that in this case the local belief was derived ultimately from the poems, although it seems to have contained some unorthodox features. But in Pindar, Aeschylus and other early poets we find forms of the story which differ much more widely from the Homeric account. These authorities also give us a good deal of information regarding other members of the family, Pelops, Atreus and Orestes--persons who seem not to have figured prominently in any Homeric poems that we know of. Particularly we should notice that according to Pausanias (III 19. 5) the Spartans also possessed a tomb of Agamemnon (at Amyclai), and that in early times they appear to have claimed him as one of their own kings. To this we have already referred (p. 240). The problem as a whole is surely one which requires considerably more investigation than it has yet received. But I should be much surprised if such investigations, carried out in an impartial spirit, did not bring to light many traces of stories relating to the Heroic Age, which were independent of anything that we may fairly call 'Homeric' poetry.
Perhaps it may be said that we can safely claim a fictitious origin for some of the leading characters without committing ourselves to the view that all of them were sprung from this source. The case of Agamemnon, which we have mentioned above, is scarcely one of the most promising. We will now take what is generally regarded as the most certain case, namely that of Aias[459]. There are two heroes of this name, of whom one is a Locrian, while the other belongs to Salamis. The theory now most usually held is that one of the two--preferably the latter--is a fictitious character, derived from the other. This theory rests on the following arguments: (i) that the two heroes are often found together, (ii) that Salamis is only mentioned in two passages, (iii) that, apart from his brother Teucros, the connections of Aias of Salamis are themselves obviously fictitious. The distinctive characteristic of this Aias is his enormous shield; and this gave birth both to the name of his father Τελαμών ('Strap'), and to that of his son, Εὐρυσάκης ('Broad-shield'). The appropriateness of the latter name is evident enough; but it does not occur in the Homeric poems. The evidence seems to indicate that this person is a genealogical creation of much later times--possibly due to the misunderstanding of an epithet. On the other hand the force of the name Τελαμών does not strike me as particularly obvious. Aias' distinguishing characteristic was not his shield-strap, but the shield itself. Several heroes, Agamemnon, Diomedes and others, are said to have shield-straps; indeed from Il. II 388 f. we may infer that they were commonly, if not generally, used. Moreover the word τελαμών does not necessarily mean 'shield-strap'; we find it used also, in several passages, for 'sword-strap.' Its original meaning appears to have been 'supporter'; and we have no reason for supposing that such a word was inadmissible as a proper name[460]. Again, the argument that Salamis is only mentioned twice loses its force when the general usage of the Iliad is taken into account. Except in three cases--due largely to certain stereotyped formulae--it is not customary to refer to the home or nationality of the Achaean leaders[461]. Even if the genuineness of Il. VII 199 be doubted, there can scarcely be any question that Aias was localised at Salamis by the time when the Homeric poems first obtained general currency in Greece; for the post-Homeric (or non-Homeric) genealogy of the Aiacidai and their connection with Aegina go back probably beyond the seventh century. There remains then only the fact that two friends and colleagues have the same name. That is doubtless a curious coincidence; but not more curious than many such cases which occur in real life. On the whole I cannot help thinking that the readiness with which this theory has been received is due to the prevalent enthusiasm for such hypotheses. When soberly considered the evidence in its favour is of the slightest.
In conclusion we must take account of another hypothesis, which seems to be particularly popular at present--namely that many characters have been attracted into the Trojan cycle from different quarters, some from other cycles of heroic poetry, and some from local tradition. Strictly speaking we have here to do with two different hypotheses; but they may conveniently be taken together. Both are credible enough under certain conditions. In the first place we must assume the existence of a nucleus of original matter sufficient to provide the 'attractive' force. Secondly, the poets' audience must not have such knowledge either of the original or the subsidiary stories as would check their readiness to allow the amalgamation. Thus no audience of the fifth century would have consented to see Heracles introduced into a drama dealing with Orestes. But medieval German poems do bring Dietrich von Bern into association both with Attila and Eormenric, although we know that the three heroes belonged originally to quite distinct stories. This parallel has frequently been urged in support of the contention that Agamemnon or Nestor or Idomeneus may once have belonged to separate stories before they were associated with Achilles or Aias the Locrian or whoever it was who was first connected with the siege of Troy.
In Chapter XI we discussed the supposed analogy between Homeric and medieval German poetry and came to the conclusion that it had no foundation. The roots of the latter doubtless go back to court-poetry. But for centuries it was preserved only by popular minstrels; and during this period it underwent not only a process of disintegration in regard to subject-matter, but also a complete change both in spirit and metrical form. Our discussion led us to conclude that there was no ground for supposing the Homeric poems to have passed through such a stage as this--that on the contrary they appear to have been preserved by court poets until they attained their final form. But heroic court-poetry is everywhere bound by convention. The poet must be a master of traditional lore as well as of form; but he must not be a revolutionary. He may borrow descriptions, incidents, probably also minor characters, from other stories and even from folk-tales--especially when he is dealing with the adventures of a solitary wanderer in unknown lands[462]. But, since his audience likewise consists of persons who are more or less trained in the same kind of lore, he will find considerable difficulty in transferring a well-known hero from one story to another--more difficulty indeed than in inventing the hero outright. He would probably have just about as much chance of success as a modern dramatist who wished to introduce Cromwell into a serious play dealing with Napoleon Bonaparte. We must have good evidence before we can believe that the court poets of ancient Greece were able to indulge in such flights of imagination.
But no such evidence appears to be forthcoming[463]. One of the cases most commonly cited is the fight of Tlepolemos and Sarpedon. This case rests partly on the fact that the two combatants are represented as coming from districts, both remote from Troy but not very distant from one another, and partly on the groundless assumption that opponents must be near neighbours. Unfortunately Sarpedon himself is killed by Patroclos, a hero from Phthiotis. To meet this difficulty we find a further hypothesis, which need not be discussed here. I do not say that it is impossible that Tlepolemos and Sarpedon have been taken from a different story. My view is that until it is supported by evidence[464] such a conjecture does not deserve serious consideration. The same remark applies to the case of Idomeneus which has likewise been cited in this connection. Indeed it is surely a fatal objection to this hypothesis as a whole that, with one exception[465], the heroes of the Iliad are persons who are known practically only in connection with the siege of Troy. The force of this objection may be appreciated by the fact that both poems contain many incidental allusions to heroes who are well known to us from other sources, as well as to persons of whom we know little or nothing at all. If the personnel of the Iliad has really grown up through a process of attraction how is it that Heracles, Iason, Peirithoos, Theseus, Minos and Adrastos have not been drawn into the net? Some of them certainly have sons or grandsons who figure in the Iliad; but it deserves to be remarked that, with the exception of Idomeneus, these are all persons of little importance. On the other hand the fathers of the principal heroes are themselves in no case--unless we count Tydeus--'heroes of the first rank.' Can any one seriously argue that such a result as this would be produced by an artificial scheme--a scheme, that is to say, in the framing of which poets had a free command of their material? On the contrary the only conclusion, I think, to which an unbiassed study of the evidence can lead, is that the poets never enjoyed such freedom; that the later poets were bound by the work of their predecessors, and these again by something which bears a suspicious resemblance to facts of real life.
* * * * *
In the course of this and the preceding chapters we have reviewed briefly a number of hypotheses which have been brought forward from time to time with the object of explaining the origin of the characters and events treated in the Homeric poems. These hypotheses may be grouped summarily under four headings: (i) nature-myths, (ii) tribal heroes, (iii) fiction, (iv) transference. In dealing with the first group we have restricted ourselves to the consideration of two cases which appear as yet not to have fallen into the same discredit as the rest. Our conclusion however is that they rest on equally unsubstantial foundations. The second group is more popular just now, and this we have examined at length. We find that--apart from some genealogical names--this group of hypotheses rests upon a number of assumptions, some of which are incapable of proof, while others are demonstrably incorrect. The third group has a much better case. We find that the use of fiction appears to be shown not only in the presentation of the stories (as in Teutonic poetry) but also in the invention of minor characters. The extent to which it is used is a problem which requires further investigation. The last remark applies also to the fourth group. In principle it is only reasonable to expect that both characters and incidents may have been transferred from one story to another. But the instances which have been suggested are tainted with the 'tribal hero' hypothesis and the evidence on which they rest is altogether inconclusive. Lastly, we have noted that, if our view of the history of Homeric poetry is correct, the use of both fiction (invention) and 'transference' must have been confined within certain limits[466].
It may perhaps be said that these conclusions show an inadequate recognition of the results attained by modern investigations in the history of Greek heroic tradition. But we may fairly ask how many definite results have been attained in this field--results, I mean, which command the unanimous approval, or anything like the unanimous approval, of present-day scholars. It is a common opinion, at least in this country, that the general effect has been rather to obscure than to solve the real problems presented by the poems. If we put aside the opinions of more conservative scholars we may indeed find a common element--namely the belief that the attitude of the ancients themselves to stories of the Heroic Age was mistaken. But this belief cannot be regarded as a result established by the investigations; it is rather their starting point.
By 'the ancients' I do not mean merely the poets and mythographers of antiquity. It is admitted that "the basis of fact in Homer is fully as real to Thucydides as to Herodotus." Now the work undertaken by Thucydides was not a history of the Trojan War; but he had evidently considered that story. Apparently it did not occur to him to doubt that the war had taken place, or even that the expedition had been commanded by Agamemnon, king of Mycenae. What he had reflected on was the question whether the expedition was really on so large a scale as is stated in the Iliad; and the result to which his reflections brought him was that there was not a sufficient case for scepticism (οὔκουν ἀπιστεῖν εἰκός). We are at liberty to form a different opinion. Yet Thucydides was a man no whit inferior intellectually to the best of modern scholars. Moreover he had the advantage of being a native; and he was separated from the Heroic Age by some six centuries, whereas we are separated from it by nearly thirty. There can be little doubt that many sources of information were open to him--traditions, poems and even monuments--which are entirely lost to us. It seems to me therefore that before we disregard the opinions of such persons we shall do well to consider carefully in what respects we are better qualified for forming a judgment.
So far as I can see we have the advantage in two respects only. Firstly, there is the evidence of the Egyptian monuments and of that prehistoric Aegean civilisation which has been revealed to us by the discoveries of Schliemann, Dörpfeld, Evans, Halbherr and many others. It is at least improbable that Thucydides was as well acquainted with either of these sources of information as we are. If he had seen Dr Dörpfeld's excavations at Troy he might perhaps have modified his opinion about the numbers of the Achaean army, although he had noted the dimensions of Mycenae. But that after all is a trifle. Can it be said that the general effect of the new evidence has been to discredit the tradition? The records of Rameses II and his successors have definitely disposed of the idea that Agamemnon's expedition was anything impossible, while the discoveries in Crete have shown once for all that 'early' does not mean the same thing as 'primitive.' It is a significant fact therefore that in many investigations of the type we are discussing little or no use has been made of this new evidence. The evidence on which they rely is evidence which was at least as accessible to Thucydides as it is to us.
Secondly, it is in our power, probably far more than it was in that of Thucydides and his contemporaries, to compare the Homeric stories with others of the same type. It is here that our great advantage lies. But can it be said that this advantage has been turned to account by modern writers? Many works contain no reference to any poetry other than Greek and Latin--the latter of which, owing to its dependence upon Greek, is of little value for our purpose. Many others, it is true, have used the evidence of Teutonic heroic poetry. But only by taking a single poem belonging to the latest stratum, without reference to its history or its connections in the poetry of other Teutonic peoples, and by using precarious hypotheses as to the origin of the story as a foundation for similar hypotheses in relation to the Homeric stories. The earlier strata of Teutonic heroic poetry have been ignored as much as the heroic poetry of other European peoples.
I have no doubt that much which is obscure in Homeric poetry and tradition may be illuminated by a historical study of heroic poetry elsewhere--not merely Teutonic but also Celtic, Slavonic and even non-European. For the story of the Iliad in particular I suspect that a fairly close parallel--perhaps the closest of all--is to be found in those Servian poems which deal with the battle of Kossovo[467]. My object however in this book is to bring to light the relations of Greek and Teutonic heroic poetry--or rather to make a start in that direction, for the object is by no means one which can be accomplished in a single attempt. So much however may be said with confidence even now: all that we know, apart from hypotheses, with regard to the origin of the Teutonic heroic stories corresponds to the views held by Thucydides and his contemporaries.
With the affinities between Homeric poetry and the old Teutonic court-poetry we shall have to deal in the next chapter. I do not think that any true analogy to the medieval German poems is to be found in Greek literature; but I have ventured to suggest (p. 239 f.) that the poems of the Edda have something in common with those of Stesichoros and his followers. Apart from the poems however, Greek literature preserves numerous records of the Heroic Age, frequently, though not always, in the form of local traditions. Some of these are doubtless due to the influence of Homeric or 'Stesichoric' poetry; but we have no right to assume that this is universally true. There are a number which appear to be of popular origin, whether they come from poems of Stage III (cf. p. 94 ff.) or from poems which were 'popular' from the beginning or from stories which never were clothed in poetic form.
As an example we will take the story of Minos. So far as I know, there is no evidence that this hero figured prominently in any early poems of which we have record, though incidental allusions to him occur both in the Iliad and the Odyssey. Yet there is no doubt that the Greeks regarded him as one of the very greatest figures of the far past. The most striking tradition recorded of him is that he possessed a powerful fleet, which enabled him to subdue the islands, to put down piracy and thus to secure safety for navigation. This thalassocracy is mentioned both by Herodotus (I 171, III 122) and Thucydides (I 4, 8); and the former adds that no such attempt to command the sea was made again until the time of Polycrates of Samos, in the latter part of the sixth century. Later writers relate the famous story of the Minotaur; they represent Minos also as the founder of cities, including Cnossos and Phaistos, the great prehistoric palaces lately excavated, and as a legislator or judge. In what is commonly regarded as one of the latest additions to the Odyssey (XI 568 ff.) we find him giving judgments among the dead.
It is obvious enough that the story of Minos contains many mythical features. But do these features constitute the original kernel of the story, or are they accretions, due to folk-tales or popular belief? We need not enter here into the story of the Minotaur, upon which Dr Evans' discoveries have thrown such a curious light. But there are other features in the story which may be illustrated from medieval beliefs regarding Dietrich von Bern. Sometimes we find this hero represented as the leader of the 'Wild Hunt,' the army of ghosts[468]--a position elsewhere occupied by Wodan or other mythical beings. In medieval German homilies and other religious works he is credited with having been the founder of several famous Roman buildings, such as the Amphitheatre at Verona and the Castle of St Angelo at Rome[469]. In such beliefs we have a close enough parallel to the traditions of Minos. There is no reason for supposing that the Greeks were better acquainted with the prehistoric Cretans than the Germans were with the ancient Romans. In both cases doubtless it seemed natural to attribute the foundation of venerable buildings to a prominent hero of their own race[470]. But Dietrich von Bern (Theodric, king of the Ostrogoths) was not originally a mythical being.
Nor need the tradition of Minos' thalassocracy be regarded as altogether incredible. We have seen that in the reigns of Merenptah and Rameses III Egypt and the neighbouring lands were invaded by large forces from the Aegean or even more remote regions. After the time of Rameses III we hear little of these peoples, though it is clear that they had formed settlements on the coast of Palestine. From the following centuries we have apparently only one detailed piece of information relating to the Mediterranean, namely the story of a certain Unuamen (or Wenamon), an official belonging to the temple of Amen at Thebes, who had been sent to the Lebanon to buy timber[471]. From this story we may infer with some probability that the eastern end of the Mediterranean was policed or controlled by the fleets of some Aegean nation[472]. The time to which the story refers is either the reign of Herhor or that of his predecessor Rameses XII[473]--about the beginning of the eleventh century. That seems to be approximately the time indicated for Minos by Greek tradition; for according to Il. XIII 451 f. and Od. XIX 178 ff. he was the grandfather of Idomeneus. It is scarcely impossible that an ambitious Greek prince of this age may have been animated by the desire of regaining the supremacy of the ancient Cretans, just as Theodric was inspired by the idea of restoring under Gothic rule the power formerly held by the Roman emperors.
FOOTNOTES:
[451] It has been held that the Aeolic settlements in the Troad itself date only from the seventh century (cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II pp. 203, 463 f.), and there is some evidence that movements of this kind were in operation about that time. But the excavations at Troy brought to light the fact that the district had been occupied, in times long subsequent to the destruction of the fortress, by a semi-barbarous people, apparently from the region of the Danube. The evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that there were Greek settlements in existence before this time, but that they were temporarily overthrown by the barbarians (cf. Brückner, _Troja und Ilion_, p. 567 ff.). At all events it is clear that the Homeric poets were familiar with the district.
[452] For a full account of this story see Mawer, _Ragnar Lothbrók and his sons_ (published in the Saga-Book of the Viking Club, Jan. 1909).
[453] Cf. Βαιάκη. πόλις τῆς Χαονίας. Ἑκαταῖος. κ.τ.λ. (Steph. Byz., s.v.) From this notice we gather that at the beginning of the fifth century (or earlier) the Greeks knew of a city or state called Baiace in Chaonia, i.e. opposite the island of Corfu, which was usually identified with Scheria in ancient times. It has been remarked by several scholars that the name Βαιάκη is obviously independent of Homeric poetry. We may infer also (i) that it was derived from a non-Greek source and (ii) that if Βαιακ- and Φαιηκ- are identical the latter name must have become known to the Greeks in very early times. It is not impossible that in the Heroic Age the Greeks may have been familiar with more than the name of this people; but there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, for the existence of a prehistoric civilisation on the Albanian coast--such as we find depicted in Od. VI-VIII. Until such evidence is forthcoming probability is in favour of the view that the picture drawn of the Phaeacian community in the Odyssey is derived from a different region--most likely from the Aegean.
[454] Possibly Θερσίτης is another example of this type. It seems to me more probable however that it is a nickname, similar to Ἶρος (Od. XVIII 6 f.). It has been well connected with Θηρίτας, a Laconian name for Ares or Enyalios (cf. Usener, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Wien_, CXXXVII, p. 53). But I cannot see any justification for the hypothesis (_ib._, p. 57) that the practices described by Pausanias (III 14. 8 f.; XIX 7 f.; XX 2. 8) represent a contest between Enyalios and Achilles, or for connecting them in any way with the story of the killing of Thersites by Achilles in the Aithiopis. Achilles was worshipped elsewhere in connection with athletic practices (cf. Pausanias, VI 23. 3; also the Δρόμος Ἀχιλλέως mentioned by Arrian, _Peripl._ 21. 1), probably for the same reason that worship was paid to famous athletes of the past (cf. Pindar, _Isth._ VII 37, 59 ff.).
[455] Curiously enough the most suspicious names are those of the two chief characters, Εὐρύμαχος son of Πόλυβος, and Ἀντίνοος son of Εὐπείθης.
[456] Under the head of fiction I think we may probably include many national names and names derived from cities, rivers, etc. It has been remarked above (p. 268, note) that these names occur chiefly among the Trojans and their allies, e.g. Τρώς (son of Alastor), Δάρδανος (son of Bias), Μύγδων, Ἀσκάνιος, Δρύοψ, Δόλοψ, Τεύθρας, Πήδαιος, Ἴμβριος, Ἰδαῖος, Σκαμάνδριος, Θηβαῖος, Θυμβραῖος. I do not mean of course to suggest that all such names are necessarily fictitious. The type doubtless was ancient, but it possessed obvious facilities for the formation of names for fictitious characters of foreign nationality.
[457] This point seems to me to be of fundamental importance; but it is apparently not always recognised. Prof. Meyer (_Geschichte des Alterthums_, II p. 207) holds, rightly as I think, that there is no valid reason for doubting that Troy actually was destroyed by a king of Mycenae. Yet elsewhere (_ib._, p. 186 f., etc.) he regards Agamemnon himself as a Spartan deity and most of the other chief Achaean heroes as mythical or fictitious or at least unconnected originally with the story of Troy. According to my view the interest in heroic poetry, Greek as well as Teutonic, Welsh or Servian, was from the beginning essentially bound up with individual characters, e.g. not with a (nameless) king of Mycenae--which is comparatively seldom mentioned (cf. p. 274)--but with King Agamemnon. It is true that under certain conditions one name occasionally does displace another in heroic stories; but we have seen no reason for believing that the conditions favourable to such changes ever prevailed in the history of Greek heroic poetry. Neither the name Ἀγαμέμνων nor the later inferences to Ζεύς Ἀγαμέμνων seem to me to afford any valid ground for doubting that Agamemnon was the king of Mycenae originally concerned in the story.
[458] Note should be taken also of the fact that the peculiar type of nomenclature which we find among the Phaeacians (cf. p. 299) is not confined to the list of athletes but spread over the whole of this section of the poem. It is quite possible of course that the few exceptional names, such as Ἀλκίνοος, may be derived from tradition or from an earlier poet.
[459] Cf. Robert, _Studien zur Ilias_, p. 406 ff.; Bethe, _N. Jahrb._, XIII p. 1 ff.; Cauer, _Grundfragen_² p. 197 ff.
[460] It is to be remembered that as a patronymic Τελαμώνιος is an Aeolic formation. The rareness of forms of this type renders it highly improbable that a nickname thus formed should have been misinterpreted as a patronymic. As a nickname too should we not rather have expected Τελαμωνεύς?
[461] Two passages mention Λοκροί in connection with the other Aias; three mention Ἰθάκη or Κεφαλλῆνες in connection with Odysseus. Σπάρτη and Λακεδαίμων are mentioned in connection with Menelaos only in the Catalogue. References to Eurybates and Helen are of course not included here. The only leading Achaean heroes whose home or nationality is frequently mentioned are Achilles, Nestor and Idomeneus.
[462] For folk-tales cf. p. 258 ff. The same conditions are probably favourable both to transference and invention. The latter faculty is perhaps first displayed in lists of supernatural beings, such as those of the Nereids in Il. XVIII 39 ff. and Theog. 242 ff. (which differ a good deal). We may compare the list of dwarfs given in Völuspá.
[463] We need not discuss the identification of the Adrestos and Amphios of Il. II 830 with the famous Adrastos and Amphiaraos of the Theban story (cf. Usener, _S.-B. der Akad. zu Wien_, 1898, p. 37 ff.). The strangest feature in this 'discovery' is the fascination which, in spite of its obvious untenability, it seems to have exercised on subsequent writers.
[464] The evidence of the grave-mound in Lycia, cited by Prof. Murray (_Rise of the Greek Epic_, p. 191, note), can hardly be taken seriously. Indeed Prof. Murray himself seems to consider Sarpedon's Lycian connections at least as illusory as his connection with Troy.
[465] Diomedes no doubt figured in the story of the second attack upon Thebes. It has been suggested that this hero was also originally identical with the Bistonian Diomedes, who fed his mares with human flesh and was killed by Heracles. The value of this identification depends largely upon the question whether the Doloneia formed an original part of the story of the Iliad. That is a view which would probably gain the assent of few scholars--even of those who believe that the Doloneia is not much later than the rest of the Iliad in its final form. The other arguments are of little consequence. Diomedes displays a propensity for capturing chariots--a feature which perhaps gave rise to the adventure with Rhesos; but the same remark is true of Antilochos. He fights also with the 'Thracian' god Ares, as well as with Aphrodite. But it is clear that the feud with these deities really belongs to Athene, Diomedes' hereditary guardian. In later stories, relating to the east of Italy, there may have been a confusion between the two heroes; and it is scarcely impossible that here and there Diomedes of Argos took over a cult belonging to his namesake. If so we shall have to suppose that the Bistonian Diomedes was originally an Illyrian rather than a Thracian hero.
[466] The most highly developed use of fiction occurs probably when the poets are dealing with unknown regions or peoples, as in the story of Odysseus (cf. p. 297 f.). But I am not aware that there is any evidence for the existence of poems on wholly fictitious subjects.
[467] On this subject see Note VII.
[468] Cf. J. Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_⁴ (Engl. Transl.), p. 936 f.
[469] Cf. W. Grimm, _Deutsche Heldensage_, p. 40 (and passim); J. Grimm, _op. cit._, p. 1183.
[470] Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d. Alt._², I p. 680 ff.) has pointed out that, while Thucydides seems to have regarded Minos as a Greek, Herodotus apparently held a different view. Such is certainly the natural inference to be drawn from the language of the two historians, though the evidence is perhaps not quite conclusive in either case. But Herodotus, at all events in VII 171, clearly derived his information from the people of Praisos--a community which cannot have been wholly Greek even in his time. Their account seems to have been due to an attempt to reconcile Greek and native traditions, Homeric influence being shown by the sentence τρίτῃ δὲ γενεῇ μετὰ Μίνωα τελευτήσαντα γενέσθαι τὰ Τρωϊκά, κ.τ.λ. We may compare the Egyptian story of Helen (cf. p. 266). In the Homeric poems themselves Idomeneus is descended from Minos, and no hint is given that either of them was regarded as non-Greek. The same remark appears to be true of Greek tradition elsewhere.
[471] Cf. Petrie, _History of Egypt_, III 197 ff.; Breasted, _Ancient Records (Egypt)_, IV 274 ff. Prof. Breasted believes that this document is Wenamon's authentic report of his expedition.
[472] In the course of an adventurous journey the envoy was intercepted by some ships of the Zakar (Tchakaray), a people mentioned among the Aegean confederates who fought against Rameses III (cf. p. 188 ff.). These Zakar brought him before the prince of Byblos and demanded that he should be arrested. Prof. Petrie speaks of them as Cretan 'pirates,' but neither their own behaviour nor that of the prince seems to me to be reconcilable with such a view. According to Prof. Breasted's reconstruction of the story--where the papyrus is defective--the envoy had himself been guilty of lawless conduct previously. Incidentally it appears from the story that a considerable amount of traffic was being carried on at this time both in Egyptian and Syrian ships.
[473] Herhor is mentioned in the story, but not as king.
NOTE VII. THE BATTLE OF KOSSOVO IN SERVIAN POETRY.
It has been mentioned above (p. 310) that for the story of the Iliad a fairly close parallel is to be found in those Servian poems which deal with the battle of Kossovo[474]. This parallelism has long been noticed, but unfortunately it has given rise to an unnecessary controversy. Servian writers, inspired by patriotic zeal, have sought to make an 'Iliad' by stringing their national poems together, while scholars of other nations have denied that the Servians possess anything which deserves to be called epic poetry. We need not concern ourselves here with a discussion about terms. It is clear enough that Servian heroic poetry bears little resemblance to the Homeric poems as we have them. But we may strongly suspect that at an earlier stage in the history of Homeric poetry the resemblance would be much closer, although the art of heroic poetry in Greece had doubtless been elaborated for centuries to a far higher degree than was ever attained by Servian poets.
It is to the treatment of the story however, and not to the qualities of the poetry, that I wish to call attention. Beowulf, Finn, Waldhere and the Hildebrandslied all deal with fighting of various kinds, but we do not know how early Teutonic poetry treated a story of actual war. The Servian poems resemble the Iliad chiefly in the comparatively large number of prominent characters which they introduce and in the fact that they deal with a series of more or less distinct episodes, in which various heroes from time to time play the leading part. Lazar's council or court furnishes an interesting parallel to that of Agamemnon--the more instructive because we can here check the evidence of the poems by historical records, some of which are practically contemporary, while many date from within a century of the battle.
King Lazar himself and his opponent, Sultan Murad I, are of course well-known historical persons. There is no doubt also with regard to Vuk Branković, the chief of Lazar's followers or allies. In the poems he is represented as the husband of Mara (Maria), the king's daughter; but in this case there may be some confusion. According to Ducas (p. 17[475]) Lazar had a daughter of this name who was married to Bajazet, the son and successor of Murad, after the conclusion of the war. Vuk Branković was however a son-in-law of Lazar according to Laonicos Chalcocondylas (p. 53). Again, Jug Bogdan, represented in the poems as Lazar's father-in-law[476], is believed to be identical with a certain prince named Μπόγδανος (Πόγδανος), who, according to Laonicos (p. 28), was granted by Dušan the territories between Pherrai and the Axios (Vardar), and who about 1372 submitted to Murad together with the other Servian princes in this region. To these we may add the vojvoda Vladeta; for there can be little doubt that this person is to be identified with that Vlathico Vlagenichio who, according to the anonymous translation of Ducas' history (p. 352), was sent by his uncle Iuathco (Tvrtko), king of Bosnia, to support Lazar with 20,000 men.
On the other hand some doubt has been expressed with regard to Miloš Obilić (or Kobilović) the chief Servian hero of the story. He is not mentioned apparently by any strictly contemporary authority. Yet the traditional account of Murad's death is known to the two Greek historians Ducas and Laonicos, both of whom are believed to have written within about three quarters of a century after the battle. The latter (p. 54) states that according to the Greek version of the story a Servian nobleman named Μήλοις rode fully armed into the Turkish camp, representing himself to be a deserter. Murad gave orders that he was to be allowed to come near and say what he wished. But when he reached the door of the Sultan's tent he threw his spear and slew Murad, meeting with his own death immediately afterwards. Laonicos however also says that the Turks gave quite a different account of the affair--namely that as Murad was pursuing the enemy a Servian (ἄνδρα Τριβαλλόν), who was on foot, turned and transfixed him with a javelin. Ducas' version of the story (p. 15) resembles that given by the poems in the fact that the assassin uses a dagger. His name is not given, but he is said to have been a young and distinguished Servian and to have asked to see Murad as a deserter with important information.
Closer affinity with the poems is shown by the anonymous translation of Ducas' history (p. 352 ff.), which contains much additional matter. Indeed it is scarcely possible to doubt that the additions are partly derived from poems, though these may not have been exactly identical with any which are now extant. When Miloš ('Milos Cobilichio, capetanio de Lazaro') reaches the Sultan's tent we are told, as in the poems[477], that he is bidden to kiss Murad's foot 'according to the usage of his kingdom[478].' Far more striking however is the account of the banquet on the preceding day, which in places appears to be little more than a free translation of a fragmentary poem published in Karadžić's collection[479]: "El zorno precedente a quello che seguì la iniqua et infelice bataglia, Lazaro convocati tutti i signori et principali del suo imperio[480], comandò che se aparechiasse una sdraviza secondo la usanza dela sua corte; in laquale, come gratioso et benigno signore, a tutti porse la sdraviza con sua mano. Quando la volta toccò a Milos, se fè dar una grande taza d'oro piena de pretioso vino[481]; la qual porzendoli disse a Milos: 'Excellentissimo cavalier, prendi questa sdraviza, che con la taza te dono ... sdravize per amor mio. Ma molto mi doglio che ho inteso una mala novella, che al tuo dispoto sei facto ribello'[482]. Al qual Milos, reverentemente presa la taza con chiara faza, disse: 'Signor dispoto, molto te ringratio della sdraviza et taza d'oro che m' ai donata. Ma molto mi doglio dela mia dubitata fede[483]. Doman de matina, se dio darà effecto al' alto pensier mio, se cognoscerà se io son fidele o ribello dela tua Signoria."
This translation is believed to be of Dalmatian origin[484] and, according to Prof. Bury[485], itself dates from the fifteenth century. We are bound to conclude therefore that Miloš' exploit was treated in poems--from which some of the extant pieces are ultimately descended--within a century of the battle. The earliest direct reference to poems dealing with _Khobilouitz_ (i.e. Miloš Kobilović) goes back to the first half of the sixteenth century, at which time they are said to have been numerous[486]. It may be however that the accounts given by Ducas himself and by Laonicos are also derived ultimately from poems[487]. But if so the poetic treatment of the subject must have begun within living memory of the battle; for it is clear from the evidence of these authors that by the middle of the fifteenth century the story had come to the Greeks in more than one form and that it had even attained great celebrity among them[488].
The Kossovo poems certainly give us some evidence for the phenomenon which we have above (p. 307) called 'transference.' In one poem (Karadžić, II 46, v. 59 ff.) we find it stated that King Vukašin entered into the battle and met with his death. In reality he was killed at (or shortly after) the battle of the Marica in 1371. The same poem also, immediately afterwards (v. 71 ff.), introduces Erceg Stepan, who lived nearly a century later. But this poem[489] is of a very peculiar type--distinctly non-heroic--and it is not legitimate to draw conclusions from it as to the poems in general. It would be of far more importance for our purpose if we knew that Jug Bogdan was attracted into the story. He must certainly have been an old man in 1389, since he had his territories granted to him by Dušan, who died in 1356. But he is regularly described as 'the old' (_stari_) in the poems. The fact also that he had been a vassal of Murad from 1372 onwards is hardly conclusive; for it is clear that a great effort was made in 1389 to unite the various Servian princes. On the whole the evidence, so far as it is known to me, does not seem to indicate that attraction or transference has played an important part in the story.
For the invention of characters there is, so far as I know, no absolutely decisive evidence. But probably few would be inclined to regard such a person as Vaistina, the servant or squire (_sluga_) of Musić Stefan[490] (Karadžić, II 47), otherwise than as a product of fiction; and the same remark applies to the squire Milutin who brings the news of Lazar's death to the queen (_ib._ 45. 146 ff.). It is a more difficult matter to form an opinion as to whether any of the more important characters are fictitious. Several of them appear to be unknown from contemporary historical works. Among these we may mention Musić Stefan himself and more especially Banović Strahinja, the hero of the longest poem in the cycle (_ib._ 44). So far as I know, the earliest reference to the latter is in the Chronicle of Tronoša, which mentions incidentally the destruction of his palace[491]. Again, according to the poems Miloš was accompanied on his errand to Murad by two of his friends, Milan Toplica and Ivan Kosančić. Both these persons are mentioned in the same connection by the Chronicle of Tronoša, which adds that at the banquet on the preceding night they, as well as Miloš, had been charged with disloyalty by the king. This chronicle is believed to be derived from a MS. of the sixteenth century; but there is practically no doubt that it has drawn largely from poetic sources. Our earliest authorities, Laonicos and Ducas, together with the translation of the latter, seem to imply distinctly that Miloš carried out his exploit alone. That however does not prove that the characters themselves are fictitious. On the whole, considering the limited amount of information which early records furnish, it would probably be wise to hesitate before adopting the view that any of the more important characters are invented--at all events those which can be traced back to within two centuries of the battle.
There seems to be no evidence for the introduction of what can properly be called mythical beings in poems of the Kossovo cycle[492]. But sometimes we certainly find supernatural incidents. In Karadžić, II 45. 119 ff. two crows from the field of Kossovo bring to the queen the first news of the battle and of Lazar's death. A more extravagant case occurs in the opening verses of (_ibid._) II 46--a poem to which we have already referred. Lazar is here made to receive a letter dropped by a swallow (which is carried by a falcon) offering him the choice between the heavenly and earthly kingdoms. In another (Croatian) poem (Karadžić, II 48[493]) the mother of the Jugovići prays that she may receive the eyes of a falcon and the wings of a swan. Her prayer is answered, and she flies to the field of Kossovo and sees the dead bodies of her sons and husband. This poem is largely taken up with the marvellous throughout and has little in common with heroic poetry.
But it is from the point of view of their presentation of the story that the Kossovo poems chiefly merit our attention. This presentation contains many features which may be included under the head of fiction. Yet in certain cases it is a question whether we have not rather what may be called a growth of myth. By this I mean the introduction and development of motives which, though incorrect historically, can hardly be regarded, at least in their entirety, as conscious inventions of an individual. They would seem rather to have originated in rumour and popular misconceptions. As examples we may take what are perhaps the two most salient features in the story--the exploit of Miloš and his confederates and the treachery of Vuk Branković.
We have already dealt with the first of these incidents. The poems make Miloš and his companions perform prodigies of valour before they are overcome. But our earliest authorities state that Miloš was killed almost immediately; and they imply that he was alone. Indeed we know that the Turks gave quite a different account of Murad's death. It is not at all clear that between the two the Servian account possesses the greater probability. But it may very well have been believed among the Servians from the very beginning, whether its origin is to be traced to genuine information derived from the Turkish camp or merely to idle rumour.
Again, the treachery of Vuk Branković is proclaimed again and again in the poems. But there is no evidence earlier than the sixteenth century to substantiate the charge[494]. The first reference to treachery in Lazar's army occurs in the translation of Ducas' history (p. 354); but here the traitor is called 'Dragossavo Probiscio, capitaneo del campo del dispoto.' It has been suggested that Vuk's unenviable celebrity in the poems is due to the unpopularity of his son, George Branković, who ruled over Servia from 1427 to 1457[495].
* * * * *
The above brief sketch will probably be sufficient to show that these poems are capable of throwing a good deal of light upon the origin and development of a heroic story. The period is one for which, comparatively speaking, a fair amount of information is available; and quite possibly more might be obtained by a careful investigation of the documents of that age. It is to be remembered of course that after the middle of the fifteenth century nothing like court poetry can have existed in Servia. We should expect then that from this time onwards the poems would become more and more permeated by those characteristics which we have assigned to Stage III of our scheme. As a matter of fact some of the poems show these characteristics only to a comparatively slight degree. This is especially the case with the poem on the banquet (Karadžić, II 50 iii); but part of this poem, as we have seen, can be traced back to the fifteenth century. On the other hand the characteristics of Stage III are very strongly marked in Karadžić II 46 and 48. I should expect that these poems are late compositions.
So far as I have been able to deal with the subject the result of the discussion has been that there is little or no definite evidence for the invention of characters. That is a result which can scarcely be regarded as surprising, in view of the history of Servian poetry. On the other hand the conditions were such as we should expect to be exceptionally favourable to the development of transference or attraction. Yet there is but little satisfactory evidence in this direction. I am inclined therefore to think that the force of this principle has been considerably overestimated by recent writers. What the Kossovo poems do seem to suggest is--not that the characters of the Iliad were invented or attracted from other quarters, but that their exploits and their relations with one another may in reality have been very different from what we find depicted in the poem.
FOOTNOTES:
[474] My object in this note is to call attention to a subject which appears to have been strangely neglected by English Homeric students. I cannot claim to possess the requisite qualifications, linguistic and historical, for an independent investigation of the subject. English translations of many of the poems are to be found, together with a historical introduction, in Mme Mijatovich's _Kossovo_ (London, 1881). For a more critical study the reader may be referred to the introduction to Pasić's _Narodne Pjesme o boju na Kosovu godine 1389_ (Agram, 1877), to which I am much indebted.
[475] The references to Laonicos' and Ducas' histories, as well as to the translation of the latter, are to the pages in Niebuhr's edition. It may be that Ducas was mistaken with regard to the name of Bajazet's wife; cf. Engel, _Geschichte von Serwien_, p. 332.
[476] I do not know whether this is historically correct. There seem to be a number of historical references to Milica, Lazar's queen; cf. Engel, _op. cit._, pp. 311, 331, 346 f.
[477] Cf. Pasić, _op. cit._, VI v. 13 ff. (p. 92). This passage is taken from a Croatian poem (Nr. 6, v. 166 ff.) published by Miklosich, _Denkschriften d. k. Akademie d. Wissenschaften_ (Vienna), XIX p. 73 ff., from a MS. collection at Ragusa dating from about 1728. Mme Mijatovich's poem on the same subject (p. 120 ff.) differs a good deal from this and bears a closer resemblance to the Italian in one or two points.
[478] 'Secondo la usanza del suo imperio' (cf. Miklosich, 6. 167: 'Ovaki su zakoni, Milošu, u zemlji mojoj,' etc.).
[479] Vuk Stef. Karadžić, _Srpske Narodne Pjesme_, Vol. II (Vienna, 1875), 50 III (p. 310 ff.). This is translated, with a few slight changes, in Mme Mijatovich's piece 'The Banquet before Battle' (p. 116 ff.). A somewhat different account of the same incident--and showing less resemblance to the Italian--occurs in Miklosich, 6. 116 ff., a passage which is not used by Pasić or Mijatovich.
[480] Cf. Karadžić, II 50 iii, v. 3 f.:
Svu gospodu za sofru sjedao (_scil._ Lazare), svu gospodu i gospodičiće.
[481] _Ibid._, v. 13:
Car uzima zlatan pehar vina, etc.
[482] _Ibid._, v. 31 ff.:
Zdrav Milošu, vjero i nevjero! prva vjero, potonja nevjero! Sjutra ceš me izdat' na Kosovu, i odbjeći Turskom car-Muratu; zdrav mi budi! i zdravicu popij: vino popij, a na čast ti pehar.
[483] _Ibid._, v. 39 ff.:
Vala tebe, slavni knez-Lazare! Vala tebe na tvojoj zdravici, na zdravici i na daru tvome; al' ne vala na takoj besjedi; etc.
[484] Cf. Pasić, _op. cit._, p. 26.
[485] Gibbon's _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, VII p. 327.
[486] Cf. Murko, _Geschichte der älteren südslaw. Litteraturen_, p. 205.
[487] This is perhaps rather suggested by one or two of Laonicos' sentences, e.g. (Μήλοιν φασίν) ὡπλισμένον ἐλαύνειν σὺν τῷ ἵππῳ ἐπί τὸ Ἀμουράτεω στρατόπεδον, ὡς ἂν αὐτομολοῦντα ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων (p. 54); and more especially by the speech which Ducas (p. 15) attributes to Miloš: "Βούλομαι τοῦτον ἰδεῖν καὶ λόγους τινὰς ὑποψιθυρίσαι ὡς ἐγκρατὴς γενέσθαι τουτουῒ τοῦ πολέμου· ἕνεκα γὰρ τούτου αὐτόμολος ἐλήλυθα." With the last sentence we may compare Miklosich, 6. 164:
Ja sam ti se odvrg'o od vojske Lazara kneza.
[488] Cf. Laonicos, l.c.: Ἕλληνες ... λέγουσιν ἄνδρα γενναιότατον ἐθελῆσαι ἑκόντα ὑποστῆναι ἀγῶνα κάλλιστον δὴ τῶν πώποτε γενομένων, and again, below: ὁρμὴν πασῶν δὴ καλλίστην ὧν ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν.
[489] The first part of this poem (vv. 1-44) corresponds to Mijatovich, p. 104 ff.; the second part (v. 47 ff.) to Mijatovich, p. 126 ff. In such cases as this it is much to be regretted that Mme Mijatovich did not adhere to Karadžić's text. If the explanation be that her version is derived from a different source--and not due to arbitrary transposition--this should have been made clear.
[490] In Miklosich, 6. 1-58, which deals with the same story the squire is called Oliver, while his master's name appears as Bušic Stjepane.
[491] Quoted by Pasić, _op. cit._, p. 30.
[492] Other poems, both Christian and Mohammedan, frequently introduce Vile, i.e. nymphs or elf-women.
[493] Not included in the collections of Pasić and Mijatovich. A slightly variant form (apparently of Montenegrin origin) is published, together with a translation, in Krauss' _Slavische Volkforschungen_, p. 289 f.
[494] Prof. Murko (_op. cit._, p. 202) states that Vuk "in der Schlacht in hervorragender Weise seine Pflicht erfüllt und sich dann mit den Türken gar nicht ausgesöhnt hat wie Lazar's Sohn Stefan." I do not know the authority for the first part of this statement; but according to the Turkish account (cf. Engel, _Geschichte von Serwien_, p. 346) the (right) wing of the Servian army which was commanded by Vuk was successful.
[495] Cf. Pasić, _op. cit._, p. 42.