CHAPTER XIX
THE CAUSES AND ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS OF THE HEROIC AGE
In the course of the last three chapters we have observed many remarkable resemblances between the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages--in social organisation, in the forms of government and in religious conceptions. Further we have seen that in the former case the testimony of the poems is fully substantiated by contemporary historical authorities. In the latter case we possess no evidence which affords us ground for doubting that the poems give an equally faithful reflection of conditions and ideas which prevailed in real life. Our next and final object is to enquire into the nature of the causes to which the common characteristics of the two Heroic Ages are due.
I do not think that any one will seriously suggest the possibility of a historical connection between the two Heroic Ages, separated as they are from one another by an interval of some fourteen or fifteen centuries. It is perhaps conceivable that one or other of the common elements which we have noted may have originated in Greece and worked its way round until it appears after so long a lapse of time in the north of Europe[637]. But for the phenomena as a whole any such explanation is incredible.
Another explanation is suggested by the fact that the Greek and Teutonic peoples are ultimately related, at least linguistically--both being members of the Indo-European family. It is only reasonable therefore to expect that they may have inherited common characteristics. But this explanation does not in itself account for the fact that the Heroic Age begins in one case some fourteen or fifteen centuries after the other. Moreover the Heroic Age of the Southern Slavs begins about a thousand years later than that of the Teutonic peoples, while we have no evidence that the Lithuanians ever had a Heroic Age. Yet both of these equally belong to the Indo-European linguistic family.
Again it may be suggested that the causes responsible for the Heroic Age are to be found not so much in ethnical affinity as in the possession of a similar stage of culture. The term 'Early Iron Age' is customarily applied to both the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages. But this common application of the term is misleading. In the Greek Heroic Age the use of iron, at all events for weapons, seems to have been only beginning, whereas the Teutonic peoples had been using iron weapons for at least seven or eight centuries before their Heroic Age. Moreover both the Lithuanians and the Southern Slavs have passed through similar stages of culture--in the latter case many centuries before the first Servian Heroic Age.
The suggestions put forward above may doubtless help to account for certain features in both the Teutonic and the Greek Heroic Ages; but it cannot be contended that they are capable, whether singly or collectively, of explaining the phenomena as a whole. If we are to obtain a more satisfactory explanation we shall do well in the first place to give our attention to the outstanding characteristics of that period of history which coincides with the Teutonic Heroic Age.
This period was a momentous time in Teutonic history. In the first place it saw the conversion of most of the Continental peoples to Christianity. But probably no one will suggest that the Heroic Age was an outcome of this change. On the other hand the same period witnessed the fall of the Western Empire and the occupation of almost all its territories by Teutonic peoples. The effect of these movements must have been enormous, and in them we may reasonably expect to find at least one of the chief causes of the phenomena which we are discussing. At the same time it is to be remembered that the Vandals and Visigoths, who penetrated farthest into the empire, do not figure in stories of the Heroic Age, while even the Franks are less conspicuous than the Danes, who took no part in these movements.
In the case of the Greek Heroic Age we have unfortunately to depend upon inferences, since no historical evidence is obtainable. Not many years ago Prof. Ridgeway[638] advanced a very interesting theory, which has greatly influenced subsequent opinion, at least in this country. This theory, stated briefly, is to the effect that the Achaeans were a people from Central Europe who had made their way into Greece by way of Epeiros, not very long before the Heroic Age, and conquered the indigenous inhabitants, whom he calls Pelasgians. In support of this view he has brought forward a large number of arguments relating to physical characteristics, habits, dress, armour, social organisation, religion, funeral customs, etc., in which he shows that the affinities of the Homeric Achaeans lie with the Celtic peoples rather than with the earlier inhabitants of Greece.
It is impossible here to enter into a detailed discussion of Prof. Ridgeway's theory. The first objection which may be raised against it lies in the absence of traditional evidence for the great movement of population which it involves--evidence such as we possess for the Dorian conquest and the Ionic migration. The force of this objection depends of course a good deal upon what may be called details, e.g. the date of the invasion, the numerical strength of the invaders and the method by which the conquest was effected. A more serious objection is perhaps to be found in the conditions postulated by Prof. Ridgeway for Central Europe. Probably few who have given much attention to the subject will be inclined to dispute that the affinities of Homeric civilisation lie in many respects with that of the Celtic peoples, rather than with the earlier civilisation of the Aegean. But all the evidence at our disposal seems to indicate that among the Celtic peoples this type of civilisation belongs to a much later period. There is nothing to show that even at Hallstatt and elsewhere in the Eastern Alps the earliest use of iron[639] goes back to the beginning of the first millennium, and it is extremely doubtful whether these deposits are of Celtic origin[640]. In order to prove that Homeric civilisation came from Central Europe evidence must be adduced showing that the chronology usually accepted by archaeologists is mistaken and that a civilisation of the same type prevailed in that region far back in the second millennium. Until such evidence is forthcoming it appears more probable that both the civilisation of Central and Western Europe and the non-Mycenean elements in Homeric civilisation have radiated from a common centre, the true home of which has not yet been discovered.
These considerations however must not be allowed to obscure the fact that Prof. Ridgeway's observations have thrown light on a number of serious difficulties in early Greek history. In the first place he has rightly insisted upon a recognition of the great differences noticeable between Homeric and Mycenean civilisation--differences which can hardly be accounted for except by some such explanation as that which he has brought forward. It is now admitted by the majority of scholars that the Aegean civilisation cannot have originated with the Achaeans; but there is still great difference of opinion as to the nature of its relations with this people. Some hold that the prehistoric civilisation of Crete was non-Achaean--and indeed non-Greek--until its fall, and yet believe that Mycenae and the other cities of the mainland were always Achaean. Others again hold that the later remains both on the mainland and in Crete are Achaean, while the earlier ones, at all events in Crete, were non-Achaean. But neither of these theories accounts for the differences between Mycenean and Homeric civilisation[641]. Both alike involve the assumption that the latter is a reflection of the conditions of a later age--an assumption which, as we have seen, can scarcely be reconciled with the evidence of the poems on the use of the metals and other matters discussed above.
Secondly, Prof. Ridgeway has pointed out the groundlessness of the prevalent hypothesis that the Achaeans were the first Greek-speaking inhabitants of Greece. He has rightly insisted on the antiquity of the Arcadians and Athenians, together with certain other peoples, Ionians and Cypriotes, who had emigrated from Greece, and at the same time called attention to the fact--which is commonly overlooked--that none of these peoples claimed to be of Achaean origin[642]. The Achaean communities of historical times used dialects of the West Greek type, as distinct from Ionic or Arcadian as they are from Aeolic, and we have no evidence that they ever spoke a different type of language. On this subject however enough has been said above (p. 281 ff.). The name 'Pelasgian,' which Prof. Ridgeway applies to the earlier Greek inhabitants, seems to me to be open to objection; yet the evidence of Herodotus can be adduced in its favour.
Thirdly, when Prof. Ridgeway holds that the route by which the Achaeans made their way southwards was through Epeiros he has in his favour an argument of considerable weight in the antiquity and importance of the sanctuary at Dodona, which in historical times lay on the extreme edge of the Greek world. But, apart from this, the linguistic geography of Greece is unintelligible to me unless dialects of the Arcadian and Ionic types were once spoken over a much larger area in Greece proper than that in which we find them in historical times. All indications seem to point to the region west of Pindos as the home of that West Greek group to which the Achaean dialects belong[643].
Lastly it must be regarded as improbable that Epeiros was solely responsible for those elements in Homeric or Achaean civilisation which differentiate it from that of the Mycenean age and at the same time connect it with the civilisations of Central and Western Europe. In historical times this country had passed almost entirely into the possession of barbarian peoples owing to pressure from the north, and we have no reason for supposing that this process was new. It is commonly held that in the period preceding the Heroic Age[644] there had been great movements of population from the Balkan peninsula into the north-west of Asia Minor--a process which likewise was repeated in later times. What little evidence we have for the civilisation of these peoples does not suggest any great difference between their civilisation and that of the Homeric Greeks. The Homeric poems in particular seem to draw little or no distinction in this respect between the Achaeans on the one hand and the Trojans and their allies on the other. Hence, whatever may be our attitude to the arguments based on physical characteristics, etc., on which Prof. Ridgeway lays so much weight, we cannot, I think, reasonably regard it as improbable that Epeiros had long been affected by movements from the same quarter. Indeed the existence of considerable 'Illyrian' or semi-Illyrian populations in Italy, which certainly date from prehistoric times, shows that these movements took a south-westerly, as well as a south-easterly, course. A common centre of disturbance may be found in the highlands of Albania and Upper Macedonia, though I do not mean to deny that this area itself may have been affected by movements from more northern regions.
It may be that in the volumes of his work which have still to appear Prof. Ridgeway will be able to bring forward some stronger evidence in favour of the northern origin of the Achaeans. But even with the reservations expressed above it will be seen that this theory provides a parallel on a small scale to those historical movements which characterised the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples. And some such explanation is certainly required, even apart from the Homeric poems, in order to account for the archaeological phenomena and the ethnic and linguistic geography of Greece in the historical period. It is Prof. Ridgeway's great service to have pointed out that the 'Homeric question' is only a part of a much greater problem. Towards the solution of this problem little progress can be made by hypotheses like those which we have discussed in Chapters XIII and XIV--according to which one hero is derived from a god or 'tribal personification,' while another is a fictitious character which a credulous public has come to regard as historical. Even in the best of cases it is only the surface of the problem which can be touched by such investigations. Prof. Ridgeway has shown that the real problem which lies behind the Homeric poems is not, as has been said, the development of Greek heroic tradition ('die Entwickelung der griechischen Heldensage') but the character and origin of the Greek Heroic Age. This in its turn must be regarded as only one of a series of phenomena which we meet with among various peoples and at various periods of the world's history. In short the real problem presented by the Homeric poems is one not of literature but of anthropology.
* * * * *
We have seen that the Teutonic Heroic Age was a time of great national movements and that something of the same kind appears to have taken place in or shortly before the Greek Heroic Age. But it is obvious enough that such movements in themselves will not account for the common characteristics of the two Heroic Ages which we have discussed in the last three chapters. In order to obtain an explanation of these phenomena we shall have to take the evidence of other Heroic Ages into consideration.
In the course of our discussion we have had occasion to refer to four other Heroic Ages, namely those of the Mohammedan and the Christian Servians, the Cumbrian Welsh and the ancient Gauls. Taking account of these and all other similar cases of which I have any knowledge I am not clear that the essential conditions requisite for a Heroic Age need involve more than may conveniently be summed up in the phrase 'Mars and the Muses.' It is to poetry that we owe the preservation of the stories--and indeed much more than this; for wherever we have any evidence as to its character heroic poetry seems to have aimed at something more than a mere record of facts. Indeed there can be little doubt that it exercised a considerable influence upon the spirit of the times.
The part played by 'Mars' is perhaps not so obvious; for it is clear from Beowulf and the Odyssey that a state of actual war is not a necessary condition either for heroic society or even for the formation of a heroic story. Yet I cannot call to mind a single story in which the hero, i.e. the leading sympathetic character, is not distinguished for personal bravery; and usually the main action of the story turns upon a situation in which opportunity is given for the display of this quality. It appears to me incredible that the types of character most prominent in all these forms of heroic poetry could have flourished in times of profound international peace and settled social conditions[645]. Indeed I cannot but think that under such conditions most of our heroes would sooner or later have found themselves in prison.
On the whole warfare is the state of affairs most commonly involved in heroic stories. It is a fact worth noting however that this warfare almost invariably takes the form of hand-to-hand fighting and very frequently that of a series of single combats. The national aspect of war is seldom brought into much prominence. With the Teutonic and Greek evidence on this subject we have already dealt (pp. 329 f., 339 ff.); and we may perhaps remark that all the other Heroic Ages ended in periods of failure or even disaster. In the Welsh and Servian Heroic Ages the warfare certainly has a religious side; but this aspect is not always so prominent in the poems as one might have expected. We know too from historical sources that Welsh princes often fought in alliance with the heathen English during the first part of the seventh century. Similar events were by no means unknown in Servian history. The chief hero of the Southern Slavs, Kraljević Marko, was in alliance with the Turks, if he did not actually fight on their side at the battle of Kossovo.
The triumphs for which the heroes of heroic poetry hope and for which they are celebrated in the poems are primarily of a personal character and gained by personal prowess, even in times of national war; and all the stories alike are permeated by the spirit of personal adventure. Sometimes we find this spirit indulged with a reckless disregard of consequences, as when Odysseus seeks out the Cyclops in his cave[646], or when the Beg Ljubović visits the white city of Zara. Not unfrequently of course the object with which such adventures are undertaken is the acquisition of wealth. But wealth itself is desired not so much in order to ensure a life of comfort or even a position of influence, but rather for the sake of display--that the hero may be able to outshine all his rivals in splendour. Desire of personal glory--often coupled with love of adventure for its own sake--appears to be the leading motive in all the various types of heroic poetry which we have considered.
Now it has often been remarked that the savage is in many respects like a child. We are certainly not justified in describing the people of any of the Heroic Ages treated above as savages; but it would be an equally great error to regard their civilisation, even in the best case, as mature. And in this respect I cannot help thinking that modern historians have tended to fall into a mistake similar to that which has sometimes been made by European governors of savage or semi-civilised communities. It is a mistake for which our historical authorities themselves are doubtless partly responsible; for we need not suppose that Greeks or Romans of the past, whether scholars or statesmen, were better able to understand the motives of heroic societies than are similar persons in our own days. The qualities exhibited by these societies, virtues and defects alike, are clearly those of adolescence. Further, we may note in this connection that the evidence of history gives us no ground for supposing that the 'heroic' spirit is an innate and permanent characteristic of certain peoples. It may be possible to point to communities in which the Heroic Age has persisted for many centuries, just as numerous peoples in different parts of the world have remained in a state of 'infancy' or savagery down to the present time. In Europe however the Heroic Age has been a transient phase. The sequel has sometimes been disastrous, sometimes comparatively prosperous; but in every case the ideas which animated the Heroic Age have ceased to retain their hold.
Thus far we have been seeking to find characteristics common to various Heroic Ages. It will be convenient here to refer briefly to the conclusions at which we arrived in the last three chapters. We saw (p. 365) that in regard to social organisation the outstanding feature both of the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages was the weakening of the ties of kindred and the growth of the bond of allegiance. In political organisation (p. 390 f.) the chief feature of both periods was the development of an irresponsible type of kingship resting upon military prestige, the formation of kingdoms with no national basis and the growth of relations between one kingdom and another. In religion (p. 425) the predominant characteristic in both cases was the subordination of chthonic and tribal cults to the worship of a number of universally recognised and highly anthropomorphic deities, together with the belief in a common and distant land of souls. Lastly, we observed (in Note VIII) that the Gaulish Heroic Age appears to have possessed almost all the same characteristics, while in regard to social and political organisation analogies are also to be found in the Heroic Ages of the Cumbrian Welsh and the Christian Servians, though hardly--or only to a very slight extent--in that of the Mohammedan Servians.
Now it deserves to be remarked that these characteristics are in no sense primitive. In social organisation the distinguishing feature of the Heroic Age is in the nature of a revolt or emancipation from those tribal obligations and ideas by which the society of primitive peoples is everywhere governed. The same remark applies in principle to political organisation; the princes of the Heroic Age appear to have freed themselves to a large extent from any public control on the part of the tribe or community. The changes which we have noted in religion have a similar tendency. Tribal ideas give way to universalism both in the cult of higher powers and in the conception of immortality; and in both the Teutonic and Greek Heroic Ages these changes seem to be associated with a weakening in the force of religion. Briefly expressed, the characteristic feature of both periods is emancipation, social, political and religious, from the bonds of tribal law.
It will be seen that the emancipation of which we are speaking is partly of an intellectual character. This applies both to religion and to those ideas which govern social relations. On the other hand it is also partly in the nature of a freedom from outside control, both in social relations and in government. The force formerly exercised by the kindred is now largely transferred to the comitatus, a body of chosen adherents pledged to personal loyalty to their chief. So also in government the council of the tribe or community has come to be nothing more than a comitatus or court. The result of the change is that the man who possesses a comitatus becomes largely free from the control of his kindred, while the chief similarly becomes free from control within his community. In both cases the only opposition that he now has to fear is from rivals who desire to take his place or from persons outside the kindred or community and in a similar position to himself. Certainly this freedom applies only to the case of kings or princes with followings of their own. But there is no reason for supposing that intellectual emancipation made much headway except among such persons and their entourages.
We have seen above that the characteristics of Heroic Ages in general are those neither of infancy nor of maturity--that the typical man of the Heroic Age is to be compared rather with a youth. The characteristics which we are now discussing are by no means inconsistent with such a view, though clearly they will not hold good for adolescence in general. For a true analogy we must turn to the case of a youth who has outgrown both the ideas and the control of his parents--such a case as may be found among the sons of unsophisticated parents, who through outside influence, at school or elsewhere, have acquired knowledge which places them in a position of superiority to their surroundings.
If we examine the history of the Teutonic Heroic Age we shall see that this analogy holds good both for individual princes and for the class as a whole. From the first century to the fifth--we may take the cases of Italicus the son of Flavus and of Theodric the Ostrogoth--it was customary for the Romans to demand the youthful sons of Teutonic kings as hostages. That the accession of such persons to power in later life would open up a channel for the introduction of foreign ideas needs probably no demonstration. But this was doubtless only one of a number of such channels. There is scarcely a single considerable deposit of antiquities dating from the first four centuries, not only in the south and west of Germany but even in Denmark and other Baltic lands, which does not contain a large proportion of Roman[647] articles. Among such articles we may mention coins, works of art (glass vases, statuettes, etc.) and, perhaps above all, armour and weapons. We may refer in particular to the Roman helmets and the large number of Roman swords and shield-bosses found in deposits on the east side of the province of Slesvig--a district remote from the Roman frontiers. The linguistic evidence too is in full agreement with that of the antiquities. Of the immense number of Latin loan-words which found their way into the Teutonic languages it is probable that quite a considerable proportion were borrowed in or before the Heroic Age.
Among the various channels through which Roman goods and Roman influence found entry into the Teutonic world we may mention trade, presents and subsidies, and booty gained by wars and piratical raids. But the most potent influence of all perhaps was the Roman practice of employing Teutonic mercenary soldiers--of which we hear both from inscriptions and literary works. This practice had begun as early as the first century, and it is noteworthy that those German princes who gave the Romans most trouble, such as Arminius and Civilis, were men who had previously served with their own armies. In the early part of the Heroic Age it appears that a very considerable proportion not only of the troops but also of the generals in the imperial service were of Teutonic nationality. Such forces were contributed largely by communities which had settled within the boundaries of the empire, such as the Goths and Vandals in the basin of the Danube and those smaller communities that we hear of incidentally in the east of Gaul. But it was by no means only from these dependent or semi-dependent principalities that the auxiliary troops were drawn. In the reigns of Constantius and Valentinian I the Roman army in Britain contained troops of Heruli--a nation which probably occupied the basin of the Elbe and had never been under Roman sovereignty, although a portion of it submitted to Justinian long afterwards. We have reason for believing that in the sixth century persons from the farthest parts of the Teutonic world were fighting in Italy. Otherwise it is difficult to account for the knowledge of Norway and Sweden shown by both Jordanes and Procopius.
It would be a mistake no doubt to suppose that the comitatus owes its origin to this mercenary service. The evidence for its existence goes back so far that a Gaulish derivation would be more probable, if it is not of native origin. But there can scarcely be any question that this form of service tended to promote its development. Here too we find a satisfactory explanation of other phenomena noticeable in the Heroic Age, in particular of that military type of kingship which rests on no national basis. Further, it needs no demonstration that such service would contribute very largely to sweep away tribal prejudices and national patriotism.
On the whole then the conclusion to which we are brought is that the characteristics of the Heroic Age owe their origin not so much to the national movements which brought about the destruction of the Western Empire as to the long-standing relations between the two peoples, and perhaps more especially to the influence exercised by mercenary service. Now we obtain a more satisfactory explanation of the effects produced on the more northern peoples. It is by no means improbable that warriors even from Denmark fought in the Roman armies, while others again may have entered the service of Eormenric, Attila or Theodric. At all events we can hardly doubt that, directly or indirectly, the northern peoples were affected to no small degree by the influence of Roman civilisation and the Roman army.
I do not suppose that anyone will be inclined to question the influence of the same civilisation upon the Welsh Heroic Age. The greater part of Britain had been under the Romans for more than three centuries, though some considerable time elapsed between their retirement and the beginning of the Heroic Age. But it is to be noted that the characters who figure in heroic poetry belong partly to the west but chiefly to the north, i.e. to those parts of the country which had been less Romanised than the rest. Moreover Welsh tradition traced the ancestry of the most important western families to a certain Cunedda who, according to a statement in the Historia Brittonum which most historians seem disposed to accept, had come from a region in the north beyond the Wall about--or very shortly before--the time when the Romans evacuated Britain. The chief northern families also belonged, at least mainly, to districts which appear to have been abandoned by the Romans early in the third century, and which had probably never been effectively occupied. Dumbarton, their principal stronghold, lay far from the frontier of the later province--indeed on the extreme edge of the earlier frontier. All the evidence at our disposal therefore indicates that the Heroic Age was not a product of the Romanised part of Britain but of those communities which remained more or less independent, more especially in the region beyond the northern frontier. At the same time it cannot be denied that even these districts must have been greatly affected by Roman influence--probably in much the same way and to at least the same degree as the Teutonic peoples adjacent to the Roman frontiers on the Continent. There is little doubt too that the inhabitants of these districts served as mercenary soldiers[648]. The conditions then appear to have been very similar to those of the Teutonic Heroic Age. First we find Roman influence, doubtless both civil and military, affecting the communities beyond the frontier. Then, on the fall of the Roman power, these communities, or rather their princes, step in and take possession of part of the province. The chief difference between the two cases is that here the new rulers were of the same nationality and spoke the same language as the previous inhabitants.
The origin of the earlier Servian Heroic Age presents in some respects rather an interesting parallel to the case we have just been considering. Like the northern Britons the Servians occupied territories which had formerly been within the frontiers of the Roman Empire. Their possession of these territories was recognised by the emperor Heraclius (610-640) not long after their settlement; and from this time onwards they were governed by a number of petty princes of their own in a state of semi-dependence, often merely nominal, on the Greek Empire for about six centuries. During the whole of this period, except perhaps for a few short intervals, when they were subject to the Bulgarians, they were constantly exposed to the influence of Greek civilisation. It is probable too that they were frequently employed in war by the Greek emperors, first against the Avars and later against the Magyars. On the death of Manuel I (1180), when the Empire rapidly went to ruin, Stefan Nemanja united the various principalities and formed a powerful Servian state. His work was continued and extended by several of his successors, especially by Uroš I (1242-1276) and Dušan (1331-1356), the latter of whom brought nearly the whole of the Balkan peninsula under his rule. Here again therefore, as in the Teutonic and Cumbrian Heroic Ages, we have the case of a semi-civilised and 'juvenile' nation exposed for a long period to the influence of a civilised but decaying empire. Again too, when the older power gives way, the younger nation asserts itself and takes possession of its neighbour's territories. In this respect however the affinities of the Servian state are rather with the kingdoms of the Ostrogoths in Italy or the Franks in Gaul than with the Cumbrian Welsh; for the latter apparently never succeeded in establishing a united state--at least not until their territories had been greatly diminished.
The history of the later Servian (Bosnian) Heroic Age was of a very different kind. After the Turkish conquest (1459 in Servia proper, somewhat later in the west) a large proportion of the inhabitants embraced Islam. From this time onwards their condition was somewhat comparable with that of their ancestors under the Greeks, though they were in much closer subjection to the suzerain power than the latter had ever been. Moreover, though they enjoyed a certain amount of prosperity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the Turkish empire was at the height of its power, they never again formed an independent state. There can be no question that during the whole of this period the Mohammedan Servians were exposed to foreign influence, probably to a greater extent than any of the cases with which we have dealt above. But this influence was of a very different character from the others and little calculated to produce emancipation, whether intellectual or otherwise. In estimating the value of the resemblances which their heroic poetry shows to the types discussed above account must be taken of the consideration that much has doubtless been inherited--not merely in metre and phraseology--from that of the earlier period.
In dealing with the Gauls we are placed at a disadvantage through not knowing when the Heroic Age began. But all that we do know of their early history bears a most striking resemblance to the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples. Our first trustworthy references to the Gauls (Κελτοί) go back to the fifth century, at which time they appear to have occupied France and some parts at least of western Germany. It is commonly held also that they had already penetrated into Spain; and there can be no doubt that by this time a considerable part of the British Isles was in the possession of Celtic peoples. By the beginning of the fourth century, if not earlier, they had effected settlements in the plain of northern Italy, from whence military expeditions frequently made their way far into the peninsula. In the latter part of the same century we hear of Gauls in the Eastern Alps, probably in the basin of the Danube. Early in the following century Gaulish armies were making expeditions throughout the greater part of the Balkan peninsula and even into Greece, while one force effected a settlement in Asia Minor.
There is no evidence that any civilised power had acquired even a nominal authority over the Gauls before their subjugation by the Romans. But it is quite clear that for many centuries they had felt the influence of the Etruscan and Greek civilisations, more especially the former. Linguistic evidence is not available here, since we know nothing of the Etruscan language and little of the Gaulish. But the fact is placed beyond doubt by the large variety of articles of Etruscan origin or Etruscan types, which have been found throughout the territories of the Gauls and even in more northern regions. The evidence seems to indicate that the influence of this civilisation was comparable with that exercised in later times by Roman civilisation on the Teutonic peoples. Unfortunately however we have no historical record of those movements which first brought the Gauls into southern Europe. All that can be said with certainty is that in the earliest times for which we have trustworthy evidence they appear usually as auxiliaries or mercenaries in the service of the Etruscans. Sometimes also they were employed by the Greeks, Carthaginians and Samnites. And it was not only the Gauls settled in Italy who were used in this way. Occasionally we hear also of Transalpine Gauls or 'Gaisatoi,' who came to their assistance. Polybius (II 22) states that the latter name means 'mercenaries' (διὰ τὸ μισθοῦ στρατεύειν); and even if his interpretation is incorrect, it is significant enough of the opinion generally entertained as to the character of these warriors. Evidence to the same effect is afforded by the consideration that in the fourth and third centuries at least half of Europe (exclusive of Russia) appears to have been under Celtic rule, while some five or six centuries later Celtic nationality had vanished almost everywhere. Such phenomena are scarcely explicable unless the Celtic conquests were largely in the nature of military occupations, like those of the Goths, Visigoths and Vandals in later times.
We have left the Greek Heroic Age until the end because in this case historical information is wanting. Here also it is clear that a high civilisation had existed in a portion of the area then occupied by the Achaeans; and there can be no doubt that the latter were deeply affected thereby. The difficulty lies in determining the relationship of the Achaeans to this civilisation. Prof. Ridgeway's theory on the question has already been discussed. At the same time however it was mentioned that there are other scholars who hold that the Achaeans themselves were partly responsible for this civilisation. Some believe that the prehistoric civilisation of Crete was non-Achaean until its fall, and yet claim an Achaean origin for the fortresses on the mainland (Mycenae, Tiryns, etc.)[649], while others attribute to the Achaeans not only the buildings on the mainland but also the later palaces in Crete[650]. It is recognised by the advocates of this latter view that a different type of civilisation appears in other--more western--districts which have at least as good a claim to be regarded as Achaean lands. The explanation given is that the more primitive pottery and less elaborate buildings of these districts are true products of Achaean art and handicraft, while the remains found at Mycenae and elsewhere are due to native, or rather Cretan, craftsmen and builders, who worked for Achaean lords.
Both these explanations are open, as we have seen, to the serious objection that they fail to account for the differences between Homeric and Mycenean (Late Minoan) civilisation. It has been observed that in regard to armature the affinities of the former lie apparently rather with the Warrior Vase (cf. p. 185), which belongs to a later period than the true Mycenean age. All indications favour the view that this type of armature is derived from that of the Shardina rather than from earlier Mycenean or Cretan types. Again, I do not see that the presence of vases of 'Late Minoan II' style in the tombs found at Kakovatos--which is identified with the Homeric Pylos--can fairly be held to prove that these tombs date from that period[651]; for, when the manufacture of such vases had ceased they may very well have been preserved as precious heirlooms for a considerable time. Nor can it be said with certainty that these tombs date from the Achaean period[652], or at all events from the last days of it[653]. The evidence of the pottery[654] found in the ruins of the citadel seems rather to suggest that this site was inhabited at a later date than the tombs[655].
In the Homeric poems we certainly find the Achaeans in possession of the chief centres of the prehistoric civilisation both in Crete and on the mainland. Mycenae itself is represented as the principal seat of the most important of the Achaean dynasties. But the poems themselves do not tell us by whom these places had been founded--though the origin of Troy does seem to be known. If we are right in believing that only the stratum represented by the Warrior Vase and the Stele corresponds truly to the conditions depicted in the poems, it is a probable inference that the Achaeans came into possession of Mycenae at a very late period in its history. In that case the presence of Agamemnon in this city would be a phenomenon somewhat parallel to that of Theodric (Dietrich von Bern) in Ravenna. In later times, it is true, we meet with stories according to which Tiryns and Mycenae were founded by Proitos and Perseus, though it is not made clear whether these persons were regarded as Achaeans. But have we any reason for believing that such stories are more trustworthy than the medieval traditions which attribute the foundation of famous Roman buildings to Dietrich von Bern? In view of the parallel cases, both Teutonic and other, which we have discussed in earlier chapters, it seems to me a highly improbable hypothesis that the men of the Greek Heroic Age had long been in possession of an advanced civilisation--still more that they had themselves initiated the construction of great palace-fortresses such as those of Tiryns and Mycenae.
The problem which we are considering has been complicated by the prevalent assumption that the Achaeans were the first Greek-speaking inhabitants of the land--an assumption which seems to me to be incompatible with the evidence of linguistic geography. The objections noted above to the Achaean origin of Mycenean civilisation would not apply with the same force to the hypothesis that this civilisation had been taken over from an earlier branch of the Greek race, represented perhaps in later times by the Arcadians and Ionians. For such an explanation a certain parallel might be found in the occupation of the (Roman) cities in Britain by British chiefs from the north and west (cf. p. 446 f.). But in this case, if we wish to press the analogy, we must bear in mind that the civilisation of the British cities was not of native origin but superimposed on the country by invaders from overseas. It is by no means impossible that such may have been the case also in Greece. Yet on the whole the complete break between the prehistoric civilisation and that of historical times must be regarded as an argument--not conclusive of course but weighty--against any form of the theory that the possessors of the former were of Greek nationality.
It may be convenient now to recapitulate briefly the various points at issue. In the first place account must be taken of the undoubted existence of the prehistoric civilisation, regarding the character of which evidence is still gradually accumulating. Further, it is scarcely open to question that the Achaeans were brought into contact with that civilisation in some form or other, though almost all scholars are agreed that it did not originate with them. The chief questions which remain to be settled are (i) whether the civilisation was native or introduced from abroad (Crete or elsewhere), (ii) whether its possessors were Greeks or non-Greeks, (iii) whether its monuments were constructed under Achaean domination or before the centres of civilisation fell into Achaean hands. The first of these questions can only be settled by a thorough examination of the various sites, such as is now being conducted[656]. All that can be said as yet is that the buildings in several cases show work belonging to more than one period. It is now believed that the earlier parts of the fortresses at Tiryns and Mycenae go back at least to the beginning of 'Late Minoan' times, i.e. probably to the sixteenth century. On the second question something has been said above. But until further evidence is forthcoming a dogmatic expression of opinion would be out of place. With regard to the third it appears to me that such evidence as we have favours Prof. Ridgeway's view, viz. that the Achaeans came into contact with this civilisation only at its fall. In that case moreover the Greek Heroic Age will fall into line with all the other Heroic Ages which we have discussed above.
Lastly, it seems to me of essential importance that the relationship of the Achaeans to the 'sea-peoples,' more especially the Shardina, should not be overlooked. We cannot with certainty determine whether or not the Achaeans were actually descended from the Shardina. But the resemblance between the two in regard to armature scarcely leaves room for doubt that the one had at least come greatly under the influence of the other. Consequently, whatever may be thought as to the proposed identification of the Akaiuasha (cf. p. 188 f.), it is highly probable that the ancestors of the Achaeans had once been associated with the 'sea-peoples[657].'
We have seen that among the Teutonic peoples, as also among the Gauls and elsewhere, mercenary service was a factor of supreme importance in the development of those features which give to the Heroic Age its distinctive character. Now it is as mercenary soldiers that the 'sea-peoples' come before our notice from the time when they are first mentioned down to their disappearance. We know from the Tell-el-Amarna tablets that Shardina had entered the Egyptian service in the reign of Amenhotep IV or his predecessor, i.e. in the first half of the fourteenth century. Later we find them fighting under both Rameses II and Rameses III. The references therefore extend over a period of nearly two centuries. Nor was it only to the Egyptians that they lent their services. The army of the Hittites encountered by Rameses II at Kadesh is said to have contained Shardina, and warriors of the same stock were present in the Libyan army defeated by Merenptah.
With the Shardina we usually find a number of other peoples associated[658]; and there is no reason for doubting that these were employed in the same way. Reference may be made to the description of the allies of the Hittites in the Poem of Pentaur, where this is expressed quite clearly[659]. The Pulesatha also represented on the monuments of Rameses III are evidently well-disciplined professional soldiers.
There can be no question then that professional military service, very frequently in the employment of foreign nations, was the vocation of those bands of warriors whom we have to regard as the predecessors of the Achaeans of the Heroic Age. But we can scarcely suppose that this mercenary service first began in regions so distant as Egypt. It has been mentioned above that the earliest reference to Shardina in the Egyptian service goes back to a time when the Cretan palaces were probably still standing (cf. p. 184). If so and if, as is commonly believed, the absence of fortifications in Crete was due to the possession of a thalassocracy by its rulers, we must conclude that these rulers permitted the early expeditions of the 'sea-peoples.' That can scarcely mean anything else than that the Shardina and their confederates were first employed as mercenaries by the Cretans themselves[660]. In that case the relations of these peoples with the civilised states of the Aegean were in all probability very similar to those of the Teutonic peoples with Rome before and after the fall of the Western Empire.
The ultimate origin of the Shardina and their confederates is a question which as yet can hardly be regarded as ripe for discussion[661]. Later discoveries may show that they were the inhabitants of the western or northern parts of Greece; or on the other hand they may confirm the view that these peoples had come in part from the western Mediterranean. All that can be said at present is that some of these peoples--the Pulesatha type--appear to have long been settled in the Aegean area[662] and that the resemblances and differences between these and the Shardina are of such a kind as to suggest that the two were peoples racially distinct[663], yet living in adjacent regions and following a similar mode of life, at least so far as the military element is concerned. On the whole the balance of probability seems at present to be in favour of the following propositions: (1) that the Shardina element was intrusive; (2) that its true home is to be looked for rather in the north than in the west[664]; (3) that its presence or influence in the Greek world is not unconnected with that series of national movements which introduced Thraco-Phrygian populations into Asia Minor[665].
It is by no means impossible that the Shardina were the direct ancestors of the Achaeans. On the other hand they may have belonged to an earlier wave of Greek invasion. Or again they may have been a non-Greek (perhaps Thraco-Phrygian) people whose relations with the Achaeans were rather in the nature of influence, however deeply this may have penetrated. That the Achaeans also were an essentially military people is shown by the tone of Homeric poetry throughout and by the story of the Iliad as a whole, as well as by many incidental passages in the Odyssey. We have good reason too for believing that their occupation was in the nature of a military rather than a tribal settlement. That is shown not only by the social and political conditions reflected in the Homeric poems[666] but also by the fact that, except in two comparatively unimportant districts, they disappeared after the Heroic Age as completely as the Ostrogoths.
* * * * *
The course of our investigations has led us to conclude that there is no reason for regarding the Greek Heroic Age as an exception to the general rule applying to such phenomena. Neither here nor in any other case are we justified in believing that the Heroic Age was a native outgrowth from an ancient and highly developed civilisation. It does not appear that a Heroic Age can arise from such conditions, any more than from conditions which may properly be called primitive. In four of the six cases which we have considered--and we need scarcely hesitate to reckon the Greek case as a fifth--the Heroic Age can be traced back to a similar series of causes. Firstly, we find a long period of 'education,' in which a semi-civilised people has been profoundly affected from without by the influence of a civilised people. Then a time has come in which the semi-civilised people has attained to a dominant position and possessed itself, at least to some extent, of its neighbour's property. The phenomena which we have recognised as characteristic of the Heroic Age appear to be the effects produced upon the semi-civilised people by these conditions.
For the exceptional case--that of the Mohammedan Servians--a special explanation has been suggested. Whether this explanation be correct or not, I do not mean to assert that the Heroic Age is universally due to the same conditions. They can scarcely hold good for the Irish Heroic Age; and outside Europe also there are cases, e.g. among the Bantu peoples, of societies which may be called 'heroic' and yet would probably require a different explanation. All such cases doubtless postulate conditions so far advanced as to permit the existence of a class of persons who have the opportunity and the ambition to assert their individuality among and above their compatriots. To deal adequately with these cases however would require a greater amount of ethnological knowledge than I possess. I have ventured above to suggest that 'Mars and the Muses' are necessary for the formation of a Heroic Age. But beyond this I will not attempt to formulate a definition of the elements which constitute a Heroic Age in general. My object has been to call attention to certain common characteristics exhibited by a limited number of epochs in European history.
The various Heroic Ages of Europe are usually connected with considerable movements of population. There is some reason for suspecting that this may be true even of the Irish Heroic Age. But such movements do not necessarily produce a Heroic Age. We have no evidence for the existence of a Heroic Age resulting from the great movement of the Slavs into eastern Germany during the fifth and following centuries[667]. Presumably the antecedent conditions were wanting. So also with the Dorians. It was only the wreckage of the old Aegean civilisation with which they were brought into contact. The days of mercenary service too, with all its civilising and at the same time denationalising influence, had apparently passed away long before they came to the front.
The general direction taken by these movements--though here the Irish case is an exception--was towards the culture lands of the south--i.e. the direction taken by movements of population was the opposite of that taken by movements of culture. The effect of the movements which took place in the Teutonic Heroic Age was to produce a series of inclined or tilted strata of population over a large part of Europe. Thus the Franks formed a ruling aristocracy in Gaul; but the subjects (_coloni_, _lati_) of the Old Saxons were in all probability largely of Frankish blood. Again, the Vandals in Africa were the wealthiest and most luxurious community known to Procopius[668]. Yet in Genseric's time (cf. p. 369) there still remained a Vandal population in the old home of the nation, of which all traces had disappeared within the next century. Presumably they had been overwhelmed by the surrounding peoples. Similar phenomena are to be found among the Goths and other Teutonic peoples, and in earlier times among the Gauls and Greeks. In the latter case we may cite as an instance the Cynurioi (on the east coast of the Peloponnesos), who were believed to be Ionians, though they had been absorbed by the Dorians of Argos. The fact therefore that we hear of no people called Achaeans in Epeiros cannot be held to prove that the Achaeans had never inhabited that region.
We hear sometimes from legends of national migrations caused by insufficiency of food. Historical records seem to show that such movements were more frequently due to pressure from neighbouring peoples. But it is greatly to be doubted whether these movements usually involved a total displacement of population. Cases like that of the Vandals indeed indicate that frequently the more enterprising part of the community were the first to move and that the chief impulse came from the attractions offered by the chance of living upon the fruits of others' labour, whether in the form of plunder or tribute. So far as our records go back, we find among the Teutonic peoples, as among the Gauls and the early Greeks, a numerous class who prefer the military life to the labour involved in agriculture. Indeed one of the most remarkable features of the Teutonic Heroic Age--and probably of the Gaulish also[669]--is the ease with which immense hosts of warriors could be gathered for an enterprise of plunder or conquest. It is certain that these hosts were frequently drawn from far and wide. If the national kings would not embark on such enterprises their subjects were ready to embrace the service of neighbouring princes, or even that of distant or alien nations, such as the Romans. It is the existence of this military element which in various epochs of European history and under similar cultural conditions has produced the phenomena comprised under the term 'Heroic Age.' For the special characteristics however to which we have called attention above--emancipation from primitive ideas and absence of national feeling--the explanation is to be found in contact with civilised communities, especially in the form of mercenary service. The military life further had the effect of making the kings regard themselves primarily as commanders of armies. It was for their warriors that consideration was required rather than for the tillers of the soil, who were largely of alien nationality.
When this is realised it becomes easy to understand the instability of heroic society. The military followers of a peace-loving king, unless he was very wealthy and generous, were liable to drift away, while the bulk of the population counted for nothing. In the absence of any truly national organisation or national feeling all depended on the personal qualities of the leaders. Under Theodric the Ostrogoths were the chief power in Europe; but within thirty years of his death they disappear and are not heard of again. Under Dušan the Servians seemed destined to absorb all that was left of the Greek empire; after his death they failed to offer any effective resistance to the Turks. The kingdoms of the Greek Heroic Age seem to have succumbed to much less formidable antagonists. So numerous indeed are cases of this kind that one is perhaps justified in regarding national disaster as the normal ending of such epochs.
* * * * *
The Heroic Age, both Greek and Teutonic, presents us with the picture of a society largely free from restraint of any kind. In the higher ranks tribal law has ceased to maintain its force; and its decay leaves the individual free from obligations both to the kindred and to the community. He may disregard the bonds of kinship even to the extent of taking a kinsman's life; and he recognises no authority beyond that of the lord whose service he has entered. The same freedom is exhibited in his attitude to the deities.
It is of course in princes that we find these features most strongly developed. That which they prize above all else is the ability to indulge their desires to the full--in feasting and every form of enjoyment for themselves, in unlimited generosity to their friends, in ferocious vindictiveness towards their foes. The hero of the Odyssey, when his opportunity arrives, sets no limit to the vengeance which he exacts, from prince, goatherd and maidservant. Achilles, the chief hero of the Iliad, is transformed into a savage when he gets possession of the dead body of his enemy. His story furnishes a fitting parallel to that of Alboin, whose brutal conduct brought upon him so swift a retribution. And it is to be remembered that this Alboin's generosity was a theme of poetry from Italy to England.
The best side of heroic kingship may be seen in such a character as Hrothgar. His conception of the duties of a national ruler may have been of a somewhat elementary character. But it is rather as the head of a large household that we have to regard him; and as such he commands our esteem. Even in the Merovingian family--we may cite Gregory's description (III 25) of Theodberht--there were princes who won the respect of Roman ecclesiastics. In the courts of such princes the conditions of life were probably as good as at any time for many centuries later. We have no reason for supposing that the case was otherwise in the Heroic Age of Greece.
But above all we have to remember the heroic poems. It is not reasonable to regard the Anglo-Saxon poems, much less the Homeric poems, as products of barbarism. The courts which gave birth to such poetry must have appropriated to a considerable extent the culture, as well as the wealth and luxury, of earlier civilisations. It is to be remarked however that the hold which these poems have exercised on subsequent ages, in very different stages of culture, is due not only to their artistic qualities but also to the absorbing interest of the situations which they depict. This interest arises very largely from the extraordinary freedom from restraint enjoyed by the characters in the gratification of their feelings and desires and from the tremendous and sudden vicissitudes of fortune to which they are exposed. The pictures presented to us are those of persons by no means ignorant of the pleasures and even the refinements of civilised life, yet dominated by the pride and passions which spring from an entirely reckless individualism and untrained by experience to exercise moderation. According to the view put forward above the explanation of such features is to be found not so much in any peculiarly fertile gift of imagination by which the conventional court poetry of these periods was inspired, but rather in the circumstances of the times and in the character of the courts which produced that poetry.
FOOTNOTES:
[637] Cremation may have a common origin in the two cases; but this practice appears to have been introduced into the North at least fifteen centuries before the Heroic Age. It has been suggested that the origin of the practice may be found in the late neolithic settlements in the district of the Dniestr and Dniepr--dating probably from the latter part of the third millennium (cf. Meyer, _Geschichte des Altertums_², I § 537). Evidence however is now accumulating to the effect that cremation was practised in Crete in Early Minoan times.
[638] _The Early Age of Greece_, Vol. I, Ch. IV and passim, together with a number of articles which have appeared in various publications.
[639] I mention this point only because Prof. Ridgeway lays stress upon it. I do not myself regard the use of iron weapons as an essential characteristic of the Heroic Age. The evidence seems to me to indicate that such weapons came into use only towards the close of the period (cf. p. 199 ff.).
[640] By this term I mean 'belonging to communities which spoke Celtic languages.' It is only fair to add that Prof. Ridgeway appears to have racial (physical), rather than linguistic, characteristics in view. But I am not clear whether he means to include among his 'Celts' peoples who used other than Celtic languages.
[641] What I mean by the term 'Homeric civilisation' will probably be clear from Chapters X and XI. I cannot admit that a satisfactory case has been made out for believing the civilisation of the Heroic Age to have differed widely from that of the poets' own times. The excavations at Cnossos have brought to light the existence (in 'Late Minoan' times) of a highly organised bureaucratic system, for which analogies enough are to be found in Egyptian records of the same period. But the poems themselves do not give the slightest hint of acquaintance with such a system. The absence of striking inconsistencies which has been remarked above (p. 241) is unintelligible unless the civilisation with which the poets themselves were acquainted--presumably in Aeolis--was a more or less direct continuation of that of the Heroic Age. Such changes as had taken place were in general probably of a retrograde character, in spite of the growing use of iron and possibly also of riding. But there is no ground, so far as I can see, for supposing that the Homeric poems are records of the people and events of a highly civilised age preserved by the traditions of a semi-barbaric society.
[642] Both in Ionia and Cyprus there were of course cities which, according to tradition, had been founded by Achaean colonists. But the Greek population as a whole made no such claim in either case. For Cyprus cf. Herodotus VII 90.
[643] Aristotle (_Meteorolog._ I 14. 21 f.) applies the term Ἑλλὰς ἡ ἀρχαία to the country round Dodona and the Acheloos; but it is commonly held that in this he was following a late Molossian story relating to Dodona, rather than a genuine tradition. Yet the part played by the Acheron in Greek religion and poetry (cf. p. 422) suggests that this region was at one time traditionally regarded by a portion of the Greek race as its homeland.
[644] A different view is taken by Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d. Alt._², I § 473, note) who accepts the statement of the Lydian historian Xanthos (quoted by Strabo, XIV 5. 29; cf. XII 8. 3) that the Phrygian invasion took place μετὰ τὰ Τρωικά. He holds that this statement is confirmed by a passage in Proclus' epitome of the Telegony (cf. Kinkel, _Epic. Gr. Fragm._, p. 57), where the Thesprotoi are represented as being at war with the Brygoi. But the latter are clearly the Brygoi of Albania; and there is nothing in the context to suggest that the Phrygians (of Asia) were believed to be still with their kinsfolk in the west. It seems to me that the statement of a fifth century writer, who is known only from fragments, requires stronger confirmation than this before it can be accepted as evidence for the chronological relationship of events which took place some seven centuries before his time. Especially is this the case when such a statement is directly opposed to several passages in the Iliad, which clearly recognise the presence of the Phrygians in Asia. In view of the fact that the queen (Hecabe) is said to be a Phrygian it is scarcely safe to assume that these elements are unessential or late additions to the story. But, more than this, Xanthos' account itself does not appear to be free from Homeric influence. The names Βερεκύντων and Ἀσκανίας may possibly be derived from Phrygian tradition--perhaps ultimately from the same source as Il. II 862 f.--but the leader's name (Σκαμάνδριος) is not only Homeric but obviously a derivative of Σκαμάνδρος, the name of a river in the Troad. It may be observed that a hero of the same name (Hector's son) figures in a somewhat similar story recorded by Strabo elsewhere (XIII 1. 52); and for my part I see no reason for attaching more importance to Xanthos' account than to this. The expression ἐκ ... τῶν ἀριστερῶν τοῦ Πόντου clearly suggests that he had confused the tradition of the Phrygian invasion with certain much later movements (of the Bithynians, Thynoi, etc.), some of which do seem to have proceeded from the quarter indicated. On the other hand all the evidence which we have (cf. Herodotus, VII 73 and VIII 138, and the position of the Brygoi in historical times) points to the western part of the Balkan peninsula as the original home of the Phrygians.
As to the nationality of the Trojans themselves--the Homeric Trojans--Prof. Meyer does not appear to have expressed an opinion. The question will doubtless be discussed in the next volume of his work. His theory however would seem to involve that any historical events which may underlie the story of the Iliad must be referred at least to the thirteenth century; for the date which he gives for the Phrygian invasion is about, or shortly after, 1200. Here again however I cannot help thinking that the evidence is far from conclusive. There may very well be a connection between the fall of the Hittite kingdom, which apparently did take place about this time, and the invasion encountered by Rameses III (cf. p. 188). But I am by no means clear why it is necessary to conclude that the Phrygian invasion immediately preceded these events. If the Masa and Dardenui of the Poem of Pentaur are rightly identified with the Mysians and Dardanoi we shall probably have to date the earliest settlements at least a century before this time. As for the Dardanoi--who apparently were regarded as the parent stock of the Homeric Trojans (cf. Il. XX 215 ff.)--I see no reason for doubting their European origin any more than that of the Phrygians (Brygoi) and the Mysians (Moisoi), whose neighbours they were both in Asia and in the Balkans. But at the same time there seems to me to be equally little reason for referring the events on which the Iliad is based to times anterior to the eleventh century.
[645] Under such conditions the nearest approach to the heroic spirit is afforded by athletic contests. Such contests have at times produced what we may call 'heroic' poetry of Stage I (cf. p. 94). But the motive for further elaboration of the stories is wanting.
[646] In the folk-tale--at least in some forms of it--the hero's arrival in the cave is involuntary.
[647] In this chapter I am using the word 'Roman' in a very wide sense, viz. for the civilisation of the Empire as a whole. Both the material objects and the influence of which I am speaking came doubtless rather from the provinces than from Italy itself. In many cases it would probably be more correct to use the term 'Romanised Celtic'; cf. _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 189 ff., though I think now that I was mistaken here in doubting the importance of (strictly) Roman influence upon the Angli--especially in military matters.
[648] It appears from the Notitia Dignitatum that troops of Attacotti were largely employed by the Romans on the Continent at the beginning of the fifth century. According to St Jerome (_Adv. Iouinianum_, II 7) the Attacotti were a British people; and they are mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (XXVI 4. 5; XXVII 8. 5) as ravaging the province of Britain, together with the Picts and Scots, in the reign of Valentinian I. It is commonly held that they belonged to the south of Scotland, though opinions differ as to whether they were Britons (properly speaking) or Picts of Galloway.
[649] This appears to be the view taken by Prof. Meyer (_Gesch. d. Alt._², I pp. 701, 719 f.). The problem will no doubt be discussed more fully in his next volume. Here I need only mention that the recent discoveries of wall-paintings at Tiryns and elsewhere seem to me to weigh rather heavily against the view that the inhabitants of these buildings were of a totally different nationality from the 'Minoan' Cretans. It is gradually becoming clear also that--contrary to what had been supposed at first--the use of writing was not unknown on the mainland; cf. Evans, _Scripta Minoa_, I p. 56 ff.
[650] Cf. especially Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitteilungen_, XXXII 600 ff.
[651] Cf. Dörpfeld, _Ath. Mitt._, XXXII vi ff. Dr Dörpfeld however holds (_ib._, p. 595 ff.) that 'Late Minoan II' and 'Late Minoan III' were contemporaneous and assigns both styles to a period (B.C. 1400-1100) considerably later than English archaeologists will allow for the former.
[652] One of the chief arguments for this view is that the tombs show traces of cremation. But account must be taken of the possibility that they may have belonged to an earlier (Arcadian?) stratum of Greek population.
[653] Cf. Dawkins, _Journ. Hell. St._, XXVII 296, where it is suggested that the tomb first explored may have belonged possibly to the ancestors of Nestor.
[654] The great majority of the sherds found in the ruins of the citadel were of that monochrome type which has been met with elsewhere on the west coast of Greece (Leucas, Olympia, etc.) and which Dr Dörpfeld regards as the native pottery of the Achaeans; cf. _Ath. Mitt._, XXXII xv f. Some sherds of the same type were found in the tombs together with the remains of Mycenean vases. Only six fragments of Mycenean pottery were found in the citadel.
[655] This explanation is rejected by Dr Dörpfeld (_Ath. Mitt._, XXXIII 316); but there does not appear to be any definite evidence that the citadel was destroyed soon after the construction of the tombs.
[656] The general effect of recent discoveries has been to bring out a closer resemblance between the Cretan and mainland deposits than had hitherto been suspected (cf. Evans, _Scripta Minoa_, I p. 55 f.). The affinities too are by no means confined to portable objects. In particular note should be taken of the wall-paintings at Thebes and elsewhere--more especially those recently discovered at Tiryns, which belong to two distinct periods (cf. Rodenwaldt, _Ath. Mitt._, XXXVI 198 ff.). The resemblance of these to similar paintings from Crete is very marked, yet perhaps scarcely sufficient as yet to prove that the possessors of Tiryns were of Cretan origin.
[657] For the Aegean connections of the sea-peoples see p. 190 f. Account is also to be taken of the deposits found in the foreign settlements at Gurob and elsewhere in the Fayum, to which belonged the tomb of An-Tursha ('Pillar of the Tursha or Thuirsha'). These deposits cover a period of about two centuries, from the reign of Amenhotep III to that of Sety II or slightly later--a period corresponding practically to that in which we find historical references to the sea-peoples. They contained many stirrup-vases and other objects of Aegean origin. A peculiar custom which prevailed here was that of burning a man's personal effects--presumably at death--in a hole cut in the floor of the house. No human remains were found in these holes, the bodies being buried in cemeteries according to Egyptian fashion; but it has been suggested that the practice may have been due to a former custom of cremation (cf. Petrie, _Illahun, Kahun and Gurob_, p. 16 ff.).
[658] When Shardina alone are mentioned account must of course be taken of the possibility that this name is representative of a class. The Egyptian mercenaries, like those of the Hittites and Libyans, may really have been drawn from a number of similar peoples who were collectively known under the name which had first become familiar in Egypt.
[659] Cf. the quotation given above, p. 247, note 6.
[660] I am not aware that representations of Shardina have yet been found in Crete. Note must be taken however of the porcelain fragment found in the third shaft-grave at Mycenae (cf. p. 191, note 4). The date of these shaft-graves can scarcely be much later than that of the destruction of the palace at Cnossos. Indeed it appears to be the prevalent view at present that they date from 'Late Minoan I,' i.e. before the palace-period; cf. Forsdyke, _Journ. Hell. St._, XXXI 116, Hall, _ib._, 119. If this is correct the porcelain fragment must of course be much older than the earliest Egyptian references to the Shardina.
[661] The use of the word _ḳrn·t_ in the great Karnak inscription of Merenptah has given rise to much disagreement among Egyptologists. Prof. Breasted (_Ancient Records, Egypt_, III p. 247 note) understands from it that the Shardina and their confederates were circumcised. But the allusion is clearly to something which differentiated these peoples from the Libyans. The Libyans themselves however are believed to have practised circumcision (cf. Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._², I § 167).
[662] Cf. pp. 190 (note 2), 247. For further references see Hall, _Journ. Hell. St._, XXXI 119 ff. In particular note should be taken of the fact that the feather head-dress is worn by Ionian or Carian mercenaries on a monument of Sennacherib (_ib._, p. 122 f.). Sir A. J. Evans (_op. cit._, pp. 24 ff., 285 ff.) attributes the Phaistos disk--on which this type of head-dress first occurs--to the south-west of Asia Minor. In this connection however it is perhaps worth calling to mind that according to Thucydides (I 4, 8; cf. Herodotus, I 171) the Cyclades also were originally inhabited by Carians. The reference is perhaps properly to the Leleges, a people who may have been nearly related to the Lycians.
[663] The Pulesatha are represented as beardless, whereas many of the Shardina wear beards. More important however is the difference in physiognomy between the two types. It has been observed that the Pulesatha approximate very closely to the Greek type of classical times.
[664] Attempts have been made to find traces of the Shardina in the 'nuraghi' of Sardinia and the burial-places adjacent to them; but, so far as I am aware, no definite evidence in favour of this connection has yet been obtained beyond the fact that a number of statuettes with horned helmets have been found in the island. The chief argument against the western origin of the Shardina is the absence of evidence, either in history or tradition, for movements of population or even for cultural influence from this quarter--at least until Roman times--whereas evidence is abundant not only for cultural influence in the reverse direction but also for settlements both of 'Illyrians' and Greeks in Italy. On the other hand it is perhaps worth noting that a helmet somewhat similar to that of the Shardina survived in historical times among the Thracians (cf. Herodotus VII 76). Further, from Il. XIII 576 f. we may probably infer that the Thracian peoples had early become famous for the manufacture of weapons. Influence from this quarter may have made its way into Greece by more than one channel. But it should be observed that Homeric poetry shows some acquaintance with the districts to the north of Epeiros and Thessaly. In particular note should be taken of certain personal names derived from names of peoples in this region, e.g. Πελάγων, Ὀρέστης, Θυέστης. It is perhaps not without significance that the two latter of these occur in the most important of the Achaean families, while the antiquity of the last is guaranteed by the aspirate (as against Δυέσται).
[665] The extent of these movements may be estimated by the number of names which occur both in the Balkan peninsula and on the east side of the Aegean, e.g. _Brygoi_ (_Phryges_), _Dardanoi_, _Moisoi_ (_Mysoi_), _Mygdones_, _Sintoi_ (_Sinties_), _Pelasgoi_; and it is not to be overlooked that on the European side most of these names occur in the basins of the Axios and Strymon or the region between them. Attention should be paid also to the common element in place-names, more especially to those (e.g. Πέργαμος) which occur in the islands (Crete, etc.) as well as in the two areas under discussion; for they seem to indicate that the movements from the Balkan peninsula were not confined to the Asiatic mainland. Even in Asia Minor itself however the Thraco-Phrygian movements may at first have affected a much larger area than that in which languages of this type survived in historical times. Herodotus (I 171) states that on the ground of common ancestry the Carians allowed Lydians and Mysians to use the temple at Mylasa--a privilege which they did not concede to other peoples, even to those who spoke the same language as themselves. This passage is usually interpreted as pointing to a traditional religious federation of the indigenous peoples. But it is a serious objection to this view that the Mysians were clearly of European origin. If the Lydian and Carian languages were non-Indo-European, as is commonly believed, they may have been taken over from indigenous peoples such as the Caunioi, whose language was similar to that of the Carians and who seem to have been among the peoples excluded from the temple at Mylasa. The possibility that the Carian language belonged originally to the Caunioi is suggested by Herodotus himself.
[666] In particular note may be taken of the absence of national names for the populations of several of the most important kingdoms; cf. p. 389, note.
[667] It may be observed also that some seven centuries elapsed between the settlement of the Servians on the lower Danube and the beginning of their (first) Heroic Age. This latter period was of course accompanied by an extension of the area occupied by the Servians, though the newly won territories were subsequently lost through the Turkish conquest.
[668] _Vand._ II 6: ἐθνῶν γὰρ ἁπάντων ὧν ἴσμεν ἡμεῖς ἁβρότατον μὲν τὸ τῶν Βανδίλων.... βαλανείοις τε οἱ ξύμπαντες ἐπεχρῶντο ἐς ἡμέραν ἑκάστην καὶ τραπέζῃ ἅπασιν εὐθηνούσῃ, ὅσα δὴ γῆ τε καὶ θάλασσα ἥδιστά τε καὶ ἄριστα φέρει. ἐχρυσοφόρουν δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, καὶ Μηδικὴν ἐσθῆτα, ἣν νῦν Σηρικὴν καλοῦσιν, ἀμπεχόμενοι.... καὶ ᾤκηντο μὲν αὐτῶν οἱ πολλοὶ ἐν παραδείσοις, ὑδάτων καὶ δένδρων εὖ ἔχουσι, κ.τ.λ.
[669] We may compare the force led by Agamemnon against Troy and the great mixed host encountered by Rameses III (cf. p. 188).
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.
Page 19 ff. For further information the reader may be referred to Miss Clarke's _Sidelights on Teutonic History during the Migration Period_ (Cambridge, 1911), which contains a very clear and interesting account of the various characters mentioned in the heroic poems.
* * * * *
Page 43, ll. 5-7. This suggestion can hardly be maintained. The true name of Theodberht's son was probably Theodwald.
* * * * *
Page 46, l. 3 ff. The consideration of this difficult question has recently been somewhat facilitated by Richter's _Chronologische Studien zur ags. Literatur_ (Halle, 1910). The general effect of Dr Richter's investigations is to confirm the view put forward by Prof. Sarazzin (_Engl. Stud._, XVIII 170 ff.) as to the antiquity of Genesis A. Unfortunately I fear that the statistics are not complete and, further, that the evidence is not always treated with strict impartiality. Thus in Beowulf such half-verses as _to widan feore_ are regarded as proofs of shortening (through loss of _h_) and reckoned in the final statistics (pp. 9, 85); but in Genesis A the metrically equivalent _on fyore lifde_ is not so reckoned (pp. 24, 89). The half-verse _geseon meahton_ is cited in Beowulf without qualification (p. 15), but in Exodus as doubtful (p. 18). In Beowulf _-wundor seon_ is taken to be -×- (pp. 13, 15), but in Daniel A it is treated as doubtful (p. 32). Dr Richter's conclusion that Genesis A is an earlier poem than Beowulf is certainly not substantiated by the treatment of _feore_ or of postconsonantal _r_, _l_, _m_, _n_[670], or again by that of _frea_, _don_, _gan_, _sie_[670]; while compounds such as _þreanyd_ obviously do not stand on the same footing as case-forms like _þrea_. It is only in the treatment of intervocalic _h_ that Genesis A apparently shows a more archaic character than Beowulf. In the former poem Dr Richter cites only one case of contraction (p. 28), and even this is doubtful; but the same remark applies to at least 18 of the 24 (genuine) cases which he cites for Beowulf (p. 15). Out of the five or six probable cases of contraction in this poem three occur in practically the same phrase--_in_ (_on_, _to_) _sele þam hean_--while two of the others occur in consecutive verses (910 f.). The conclusion to which the evidence seems to me to point is that both Genesis A and Beowulf (even in its Christianised form) date from the seventh century, but that the former has been somewhat better preserved than the latter. As Genesis A is doubtless of monastic origin, we may reasonably expect that it was committed to writing at an earlier date. In the intervening period the text of Beowulf may have suffered many changes (such as the insertion of the article) at the hands of minstrels.
The further question raised by Prof. Sarazzin (_op. cit._, p. 192 ff.) as to the relationship of Genesis A to Caedmon cannot be discussed here. But in view of the evidence brought forward I do think it would be worth while to examine and compare the characteristics of the various 'Caedmonic' poems from all points of view. Apart from the extremely improbable dating of certain sound-changes proposed by Prof. Morsbach (cf. p. 66 ff. above) and accepted both by Sarazzin and Richter, I see no reason for supposing that Caedmon's poems have entirely perished.
* * * * *
Page 61, l. 4 ff. Throughout this book I have followed the view generally held by scholars in the past that the expression _geongum cempan_ in Beow. 2044 refers to Ingeld. In recent years several scholars have adopted a different interpretation, viz. that it means not the prince himself but a nameless member of his retinue. This interpretation is due primarily to v. 2061 f., where it has been assumed, somewhat hastily in my opinion, (1) that _se oðer_ must denote the slayer and (2) that Ingeld's own country is the scene of the tragedy. On the basis of this interpretation Prof. Olrik (_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, II p. 30 ff., especially p. 37 ff.) has now put forward a theory that the episode in Beowulf has little more than the names in common with Saxo's story of Ingellus' revenge, and that the latter is in its main features the creation of a Danish poet of Harold Bluetooth's time. His explanation is certainly interesting and ingenious; but at the same time it appears to me to be open to serious objections. Thus he has to admit (p. 39) that in the only other reference to the bridal tragedy ('bryllupskampen') contained in the poem (v. 82 ff.) the scene is laid in the Danish king's hall. His explanation is that here we have a variant form of the story (cf. Widsith, v. 45 ff), emanating from a different poet. But surely one cannot place much confidence in an interpretation which involves the assumption of such an inconsistency as this[671]. Still more important is the reference to Ingeld (_Hinieldus_) in Alcuin's letter to Hygebald (cf. p. 41), which Prof. Olrik seems to have entirely ignored. From this passage it would seem that Ingeld's fame was as great in England in the eighth century as it ever became in Denmark; and such fame is scarcely compatible with the passive rôle assigned to him by the theory under discussion. But, more than this, have we any ground for supposing that Alcuin did not exercise his judgment in taking Ingeld as his example of a _perditus rex_? If the story of Ingeld known to him was substantially identical with that recorded by Saxo, as I myself believe, he could hardly have found a case in which Christian and heathen obligations presented a more glaring contrast. To the heathen this hero appealed as the pious son who exacts vengeance for his father's death; but to the Christian he was doubly abhorrent, not merely as a heathen but also as a murderer and a truce-breaker.
Like other heroic stories recorded by Saxo and Icelandic authors the story of Ingellus has without doubt a long poetic history behind it. Prof. Olrik's investigations have rendered it probable that an element in this poetry dates from the tenth century. It may be that the poem used by Saxo was actually composed--or recast--at that time. But I must confess to some scepticism as to the possibility of determining with certainty what proportion of the material is to be assigned to the various periods intermediate between the sixth and twelfth centuries; and I am disposed to think that in general Prof. Olrik has underrated the significance of the earlier elements.
* * * * *
Page 64, l. 6. It should have been mentioned that the expression "to persons born after 800" applies only to the period extending down to 975. I have not examined the evidence available for later times. About this time a new factor is introduced by the revival of interest in heroic poetry.
I would also call attention to the fact that the statistics are confined to historical documents and do not include names (of moneyers) found only on coins. My impression from a perusal of the material collected in Mr Searle's _Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum_ is that this element will not appreciably affect the statistics.
* * * * *
Page 75, l. 26 ff. Reference should have been given to the Exeter Gnomic Verses, 89 ff.
* * * * *
Page 110. On the subject discussed at the beginning of this chapter the reader is referred to Heusler, _S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1909, p. 937 ff., and Van Gennep, _La Formation des Légendes_. The definitions given above may not be entirely satisfactory--mention should perhaps have been made of the 'Ortssage'--but they will probably be found sufficient for the purpose of this book.
* * * * *
Page 116 ff. On this subject reference should be made to Panzer, _Studien zur germ. Sagengeschichte_, I _Beowulf_, which contains a careful and detailed examination of the Märchen in question. Unfortunately I have not been able to use this work, as it did not come into my hands until the first eight chapters of my book were in print. In regard to those points on which I have chiefly laid stress, viz. that Beowulf is to be identified with Biarki and that he appears to be a historical character, Prof. Panzer's views (pp. 368 ff., 390 ff.) are practically identical with those expressed above. On the other hand he holds that the story of Biarki--the portion dealing with his origin, as well as the adventure at Leire--comes from the same folk-tale as the story of Beowulf and Grendel. His theory as a whole gives rise to important questions regarding the origin and distribution of folk-tales, which cannot be discussed here. Thus I should like to know how far the same folk-tale can arise independently in different regions. Again, the Märchen with which he deals seem to me to be highly composite structures, which I should be inclined to regard rather as aggregations of folk-tales. This is true more especially of the elements common to the stories of Beowulf, Grettir and Ormr, the close affinities of which have been brought into a much clearer light by Prof. Panzer's researches. It may be that the elaborate story which underlies all three was treated in poetry at an early date; but I see no more reason now than before for believing that the two Icelandic stories have been affected by any poem dealing with Beowulf himself.
* * * * *
Page 117 f. It is perhaps worth noting that Ormr Stórolfsson was related to Grettir, both being descended from Hængr, the great-grandson of that Ketill Hængr of Hrafnista whose story is largely taken up with adventures with trolls and iötnar.
* * * * *
Page 124. For the death of Frotho III the reader may be referred to Olrik, _Danmarks Heltedigtning_, II p. 239 ff.; and for the connection between this character and the _Beaw_ of the genealogies to (_ib._) p. 249 ff. As stated above (p. 126, note) I should prefer the form _Beowa_, for earlier _Biowi_ (as _Aella_ for earlier _Aelli_; cf. p. 64). The latter form may be connected with _Byggvir_.
* * * * *
Page 139 ff. On the Nibelungenlied reference may be made to Prof. Röthe's article _Nibelungias und Waltharius_ (_S.-B. d. Akad. zu Berlin_, 1909, p. 649).
* * * * *
Page 161, l. 1 f. The references to Sarus (accidentally omitted here) are Olympiodoros, p. 449 (ed. Niebuhr), Jordanes, _Romana_, § 321 (_Mon. Germ., Auct. Ant._ V 41).
* * * * *
Page 180, l. 20 ff. It has rightly been pointed out to me by Mr C. A. Scutt that, if the statement attributed by Herodotus (VI 3) to Demaratos is to be trusted, the average length of a generation in the Spartan royal families may reasonably be expected to be somewhat longer than elsewhere. Yet in point of fact this is not borne out by the evidence available for the historical period (from the fifth to the third centuries), nor yet by that of the genealogies for the period between Theopompos and Cleomenes, if the commonly accepted date for the first Messenian war is correct.
* * * * *
Page 185, l. 20 ff. Recent discoveries have rendered it probable that cremation was practised in Crete in very early times. Up to now however all the evidence apparently comes from the Early Minoan period, so that the point upon which Dr Mackenzie lays stress remains practically unaffected.
* * * * *
Page 190, l. 2 ff. I regret that when this was written I had not observed that Prof. Meyer accepts the statement of Xanthos with regard to the Phrygian invasion. On this question see p. 437, note 2.
* * * * *
Page 198, l. 27 ff. On this subject reference may be made to Shewan, _The Lay of Dolon_, which appeared too late for me to be able to make use of it.
* * * * *
Page 244, note 2. A different view is taken by Allen, _Jour. Hell. St._ XXX 312 ff., where a full discussion of the Trojan Catalogue--as also of the Achaean Catalogue (_ib._, p. 292 ff.)--will be found. Mr Allen's conclusions differ greatly from the views expressed above.
* * * * *
Page 265, note 3. In the poem Hyndlulióð (cf. p. 12) the genealogy of Óttarr the son of Innsteinn is traced back to a certain Svanr hinn rauði. The same genealogy occurs in the document _Hversu Noregr bygðist_ (published in the Fornaldar Sögur Norðrlanda, II p. 6 in Dr Valdimar Asmundarson's edition); and here Svanr hinn rauði is said to be the son of Finnálfr by Svanhildr the daughter of Day (_Dagr Dellingsson_) and the Sun (_Sól, dóttir Mundilfara_). This document however belongs to a very late period--the close of the fourteenth century--and I know of no earlier authority for the first part of the genealogy.
* * * * *
Page 285, note 1, l. 4. For "I p. 687" read "I ii p. 687," and similarly in all subsequent references to the second edition of Prof. Meyer's _Geschichte des Altertums_.
* * * * *
Page 313, note 1. For "Pasić" read "Pavić" (and so also in the notes on the following pages).
FOOTNOTES:
[670] As shown by Dr Richter's lists (pp. 9 ff., 24 ff. and 13 ff., 27 f.).
[671] So far as I can see the only argument for this inconsistency which Prof. Olrik brings forward is the statement (Vol. I, p. 16; cf. Vol. II, p. 38, note 1, and p. 39, note 1) that the fight at the marriage precedes Beowulf's visit to the king's hall. This however seems to mean that the present tense, which is used throughout the episode (nearly a score of examples), must be taken as a historic present--a construction which is rarely or never found elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry. In Beowulf only one instance (v. 1879) is cited by Nader (_Anglia_, X 547), and this is clearly erroneous. A possible case does occur in v. 1923 (_wunað_); but most recent editors either emend (to _wunade_) or regard the passage as a speech.
INDEX
Achaia 174, 282, 289.
Achaioi (Achaeans) 176 f., etc., (in Crete) 177 f., 186 f.
Achilles 175, 222, 250, 263 f., 269, 275 ff., 288 f., 295 f., 462.
Aðils (cf. Eadgils) 17, 20, 31, 153 f.
Aelfwine (see Alboin).
Aeolic element in Homeric poems 208, 215, 273, 290 f.
Aeolic peoples, etc. 209, 272 ff., 295 f.
Aeolis 210 f., 227, 231 ff., 240.
Aeschylus 171, 237 ff.
Agamemnon (i) of Cyme 227, 231.
Agamemnon (ii) of Mycenae 174, 222, 237 ff., 274 ff., 288 f., 302, 382 ff.
Aias (i), son of Oileus 175, 302.
Aias (ii), son of Telamon 175, 202, 204, 302 f.
Aithiopis 170, 197, 236, 244.
Alboin 26, 28, 462.
Alcinoos 384.
Alcman 215, 222, 266.
Alcuin 41, 73, 79 f., 465.
Aldhelm 80.
Áli (cf. Onela) 20, 153 f.
alliances 373 f., 387 ff.
Amalaswintha 371 f.
Ammianus Marcellinus 23, 366.
Amyclai 240, 302.
Angli 31 f., 51, 61, 97 f., 376, 405.
Ansgar 255 f.
Aphrodite 416 ff.
Apollo 250 f., 416 ff.
Arcadian 284 f., 287, 436 f., 453.
Archilochos 194, 216, 226 f.
Ares 416 ff.
Argo 196, 245, 261.
Argos 274 ff.
Artemis 416.
Ásgarðr 400.
Asia Minor (ethnography of) 178, 245 ff.
assembly 368 f., 382 f.
Athene 250 f., 416 ff.
Athens 171, 216 ff., 381, 421.
Atli (cf. Attila) 13 f., 22, 146 f.
Attila 22, 37 f., 84 f., 156.
Audoin 371.
Balder 112, 400 f., 405.
Bavarian characters 31, 33.
Bede 71, 73, 79, 350, 414 f.
Bellerophon 212, 356 f., 380.
Beowulf 1 f., 47 ff., etc.
Bernlef 80, 87, 222, 243.
Biarkamál 17, 60, 121, 402.
Biarki 119 ff., 466.
birds (speaking) 98, 128.
Bithynians 245 f.
boasting 326 f.
Boeotia 214, 283 f.
Bosnian poetry 101 ff., 216, 429.
Bragi 15, 58.
Bravalla (Brávík) 25, 251.
bronze and iron 195, 199 f.
Brunanburh (poem) 3, 34, 332.
Brynhildr 7, 13 f., 140 ff., 163 ff.
Burgundians 7, 22, 31, 351, 366.
Cadmos 267.
Caedmon 45 f., 79, 230, 465.
Caesar 413, 427 ff.
Callinos 171, 226 f.
Caria, Carians 179, 245 ff.
Cassiodorus 26, 85, 374.
Catalogue (Hesiodic) 194, 197 f., 227, 242.
Catalogue of Ships 174, 279, 289, 379, 387 f., 468.
Chalon-sur-Saône 162.
chariot 203 f.
Charles Martel 127 f.
Chios 176, 209.
Christian influence in Anglo-Saxon poems 47 ff., 241.
Cilices 246 ff.
Cinaithon 170.
Circe 258 f., 419.
class gradations 351 f., 364 f.
Cleisthenes 193.
Clovis 31, 85, 347.
Clytaimnestra 229, 237 f.
Cnossos 178, 311.
comitatus 328 f., 348, 350, 361 ff., 376 f., 443.
council 369 ff., 383 ff.
cremation 53 ff., 397 f., 410 f., 422 f., 467.
Crete 177 f., 184 ff., 311 ff., 435, 450 ff., 467.
Cumbrian history 108 f., 430, 446 f.
Cyme 214.
Cynewulf (i), poet 45.
Cynewulf (ii), king of Wessex 349, 351.
Cynurioi 460.
Cypria 170, 197, 234 ff., 244, 248.
Cyzicos 196.
Danes 1 f., 15, 17, 20 f., 24 f., 29, 31, etc.
Danish heroes 1 f., 17, 20, 31, etc.
Demodocos 221, 234.
Deor 3, 56, 81, 92.
Dietrich von Bern (cf. Theodric) 5, 7 ff., 23, 154 f., 311 f., 333, 452.
Diomedeia 250 f.
Diomedes 175, 278, 379 f., 419.
divine parentage 264, 357.
divinity of kings 367, 381 f.
Dodona 417, 437.
Doloneia 198 f., 298.
Dorians 174, 178 f., 184, 186 f., 459.
dragons 122 ff.
Dušan 430, 448, 461.
Eadgils (i) 2, 27, 32, 56, 81.
Eadgils (ii) (cf. Aðils) 2, 20, 153.
Eastgota (see Ostrogotha).
Edda (Older) 10 ff., 99 f., 232.
Edda (Prose) 15.
Edda theology 394, 400, 404, 406 f.
Edwin 334, 349, 369.
Egill Skallagrímsson 16, 226.
Egypt 184 f., 187 ff., 266, 455.
Einhard 5, 62, 243.
Eireksmál 15, 257.
Ekkehard 6, 57, 162.
Eormenric (Ermenrich) 2 f., 8 ff., 23, 37, 157, 347.
Epeiros 437, 460.
Epigonoi 171.
eponymous heroes 131 f., 267 ff., 301.
Eratosthenes 179.
Eric the Victorious 252 f.
Etruscans 449 f.
Etzel (cf. Atli) 7 f., 22, etc.
Exodus (Anglo-Saxon) 45, 464.
Eyvindr Skaldaspillir 15 f., 91, 254.
family pride 327 f.
festivals 369, 383.
fictitious names 44, 159 ff., 299.
Finn 2, 20, 26, 42, 333.
folk-tales 110 ff., 258 ff., 264 ff., 466 f.
Franks 31, 39, 337, 343, 345 f., 352, 368, 460.
Frey 11, 15, 125, 253, 367, 394 f., 399 ff., 404.
Freyia 11 f., 400, 402.
Fria (cf. Frigg) 115, 408.
Frigg 394, 403, 405.
Frisians 2, 31, 80, 89 f., 370.
Fróði 15, 27, 123 ff., 467.
Gaulish heroic poetry 427 f.
Gaulish history 427 ff., 449 f.
Gautreks Saga 239, 385, 403.
Geatas (Götar) 1 f., 31 f., 35, 119 f., etc.
Gelimer 86, 94.
genealogies, Anglo-Saxon 42, 408 f.
genealogies, Greek 179 ff., 267.
Genesis (Anglo-Saxon) 211, 464.
Genseric 369 f., 460.
Geruthus 258 f.
Glaucos 341.
glory, love of 87 f., 325 f., 329.
glossaries, Anglo-Saxon 68, 70.
Glúmr 253.
Göndul 254, 263.
Gormo 258 ff.
Gothic heroic poetry 10, 62 f., 86 f.
Goths 23, 26, 31 ff., etc.
Grendel 116 f., 121 f., 466.
Grettis Saga 116 f., 467.
Guðrún 13 f., 37, 146 f., 152 f., 156, 163 ff.
Gundobad 22, 338 f.
Gunnarr (see Guthhere)
Gunnlaugs Saga 91 f.
Guntharius, Gunther (see Guthhere).
Guthhere (Gunnarr, Gunther) 6 f., 14, 21 f., 138 f., 141 ff., 146 f., 163, 165.
Gylfaginning 229.
Haakon, earl of Lade 16, 91, 252 ff., 401 f.
Haakon I, king of Norway 15, 91, 254, 263.
Hades 422 f.
Hadingus 125 f., 260.
Haethcyn 337, 346.
Hagbarðr 17, 27, 333.
Hagena (Högni) (i), 6 f., 14, 137 f., 140 ff., 161 f.
Hagena (Högni) (ii), see Heðinn and Högni.
Hákonarmál 15, 97, 254 f.
Hamðir and Sörli 14, 37, 156 f., 160 f., 333 (cf. Sarus and Ammius).
Haraldr Hilditönn 17, 24 f., 251.
Harold the Fair-haired 15, 91, 296.
Hávamál 11, 229, 397.
heathen elements in Beowulf 52 f.
Hector 269 ff.
Heðinn and Högni 16, 21, 27 f., 112, 135 ff. 333 (cf. Hetel and Hagen).
Helen 249, 265 ff., 337.
Helios (cattle of) 259.
Hellenic peoples 285 ff.
Hephaistos 416 f.
Hera 416 ff.
Heracleidai, Return of the 174, 180, 331.
Heremod 20, 60, 366.
Herhor 312.
Hermanaricus 10, 19, etc. (cf. Eormenric).
Hermes 416.
Heruli 346, 372 f., 407, 411, 445.
Hesiod 171 f., 194, 210, 214 f., 223, 228 ff., 242.
Hetel and Hagen (cf. Heðinn and Högni) 8 f., 21, etc.
Hildr (Hilde) 8 f., 16, 136 f.
Hildebrandslied 5, 62, 94 f.
Hiörungavágr 252.
Hittites 178, 188 ff., 204 f., 246 f.
Holmryge (cf. Rugii) 21, 28.
Homer's birthplace 179, 208 f.
Homeric armature 185 f., 191, 201 ff.
Homeric civilisation 186 f., 199 ff., 434 ff.
Hornklofi 15, 91.
Hrólfr Kraki 17, 20, 349.
Hrólfs Saga Kraka 120 ff.
Hrothgar 1 f., 20, 83, 119, 354, 368, 462.
Hygd, 372.
Hygelac 1 f., 24, 341, 371 f.
Hyndlulióð 12, 229, 402, 468.
Iason 196.
Iceland 10, 91 ff., 394 f., 398 ff.
Idomeneus 175, 278, 306.
Iliad 169, 174 f., 193 ff., etc.
images 205.
Ingeld (Ingellus, Ingialdr) 17, 36, 41 f., 61, 333, 465 f.
inscriptions, Anglo-Saxon 69, 71, 214.
inscriptions, Greek 209, 217, 280 f.
international interest of heroic poetry 34 ff., 335 f.
international relations 373 ff., 386 ff.
invulnerability 129, 264.
Ionian Isles 175, 274.
Ionic cities 176, 236, 245 f.
Ionic dialects 208 f., 215 ff., 283.
Ionic language of Homeric poems 208, 215 ff., 273.
Iörmunrekr 14, 19, etc. (cf. Eormenric).
Iphigeneia 238 f.
Istros 269 f.
Ithaca 356, 378.
Jómsvíkingar 251.
Jordanes 10, 26, 62, 86 f., 157.
kindred 344 ff., 353 ff., 442 f.
kingship 227 f., 337, 366 ff., 378 ff.
kinsman (slaying of) 346 ff., 359 f.
Kossovo 313, 316 f., 429, 441.
Kraljević Marko 441.
Kriemhild (cf. Guðrún) 7 f., 19, 145 ff., 163 ff.
Kûdrûn 8 f., 16, 19, 34, 135 f.
Langobardi 9, 26, 62, 89, 115, 371 ff.
Langobardic poetry 9 f., 115, 251, 413.
Langres 31, 162.
Lazar 313 ff.
Leire 377, 403.
Leleges 246, 248.
Lesbos 176.
Little Iliad 170, 197, 236.
Ljubović (Beg) 103, 441.
Locrians 269 f., 278, 357.
Loðbrók (Ragnarr) 17, 24, 295 f.
Lokasenna 11, 83, 403.
Loki 11, 403.
Ludwigslied 5, 21, 34.
Lycians 178 f., 212, 356 f.
Lycurgos 334 f.
Maldon (poem) 3, 97.
manes-worship 398 f., 410, 421.
Marcellinus Comes 37.
marriage-customs 98, 205, 358 f.
Menelaos 175, 277, 356, 362.
Merenptah 187, 455.
mercenary service 445 ff., 455 f., 461.
Merovingians 345 f., 367.
Merseburg charms 405, 408 f., 412.
Midas 227.
Miletos 176, 231, 246.
Miloš Obilić 314 f., 317 f.
Mimnermos 332.
Minoan civilisation 184 ff., 451 ff.
Minos 310 ff.
minstrelsy 79 ff., 221 ff.
Murad I 313 ff.
Mycenae 185, 240, 274, 308 f., 435, 450 ff.
Mycenean civilisation 185 ff., 190 ff., 200 ff., 218, 233, 435 ff., 451 f.
Nekyia 197, 229, 257, 260 f.
Nestor 175, 272, 277, 342.
Nibelungenlied 7, 139 ff., 164 f., 224, 233, 393, 467.
Niflungar (Nibelunge) 140 ff.
Niörðr 399 f., 405.
nobility 352, 364.
north-west Greek 281 ff.
Norway 10, 15, 30, 32 f., 59, 91 f., 100, 118 ff., 375, 395, 401, 404, 406 f.
Nostoi 170, 197, 234 ff.
Odoacer 23, 376 f.
Odysseus 175, 258, 273 f., 288 f., 297 ff., 358, 363 f., 419.
Odyssey 169, 175, 193 ff., etc.
Offa (i), king of Angel 4, 17, 26 f., 126, 333, 376.
Offa (ii), king of Mercia 126, 334 f.
officials 352.
Ohthere (Óttarr) 20, 153.
Old Saxons 88 f., 370, 407, 410.
Olympos 232, 416 f.
Onela (cf. Áli) 2, 20, 153 f., 347.
Ongentheo 2, 153, 340.
Orestes 237.
Orms Tháttr Storolfssonar 117 f., 467.
Ostrogotha 10, 21, 26.
Othin 11, 13, 114, 251, 253 ff., 394 ff. (cf. Woden).
Óttarr (i), son of Innsteinn 12, 402, 468.
Óttarr (ii), father of Aðils (see Ohthere).
Paphlagonia 245.
Paris 222, 229, 269 ff.
Patroclos 328 f., 361 f.
patronymics 355.
Paulus Diaconus 25 f., 372 f.
Peisistratos 216, 256.
Pelasgic Argos 274, 278 ff.
Pelasgoi 177, 186, 248, 285 ff.
Penelope 358 f.
Pentaur (Poem of) 247, 455.
Periandros 261, 422.
personal allegiance 348 ff., 361 ff.
personal names (heroic) 42 ff., 64 ff., 231.
Phaeacians 297, 299 f., 384 f.
Phaistos 268, 311.
Phemios 221, 234.
Philistines (see Pulesatha).
Phocis 283.
Phoinix 279, 360 f., 363.
Phthia 279, 286.
Phthiotis 176, 280, 282, 286 f.
place-names (heroic) 43 f.
Poseidon 416 ff.
Polyphemos 258.
Praisos 178, 213.
priests 367, 380.
Priscus 37, 62, 84.
Procopius 86, 97 ff., 128 ff., etc.
Proitos 212, 452.
Pulesatha 188 ff., 455 f.
Pylos 277, 451.
Quedlinburg Annals 6, 9, 23, 37, 80.
Rabenschlacht 8, 23.
Radiger 98, 370 f.
Rameses II 188, 247, 455.
Rameses III 185, 188 f., 455.
Ravenna 23, 452.
Reginsmál, Fáfnismál, Sigrdrífumál 13, 145, 235.
riding 204.
Roman influence 444 ff.
royal marriages 373 f., 386 f.
Rugii 28, 31, 134 (cf. Holmryge).
Russian heroic poetry 104 f.
Salamis 193, 302 f.
sanctuaries 205 f., 400 f., 406 f.
Sarpedon 305, 357.
Sarus (i) 160 f., 377, 467.
Sarus (ii) and Ammius 10, 14, etc. (cf. Hamðir and Sörli).
Saxo Grammaticus 17, 20, 25, etc.
Scheria 379, 384.
Scyld 75, 131 f., 373.
Servian (Christian) heroic poetry 103 f., 313 ff., 429 f.
Servian history 313 ff., 430, 447 ff.
Sety I 204.
Seyfridslied 7, 122, 140 f., 144 f.
Shardina 188 ff., 201, 451, 454 ff.
shield 201 f.
Shield of Heracles 169, 175.
Sidonius Apollinaris 85.
Siegfried 7, 19, 31, 33, 139 ff., 164 (cf. Sigurðr).
Sigarr 17, 21.
Sigmundr (Sigemund) 2, 16, 59 f., 114, 122 ff., 142, 251, 297.
Sigurðr 12 ff., 59, 114, 139 ff., 163 ff., 263 f., 333 (cf. Siegfried).
Sigurðr Hringr 17, 24 f., 251.
single combats 339 f.
Smyrna 208 ff., 332.
Sparta 179 ff., 184, 331.
Spercheios 206, 279 ff., 287, 417, 419.
spoils 340 f.
stages in history of heroic poetry 94 ff.
Starkaðr 77, 36, 92 f.
Stesichoros 171, 239 f., 266, 310.
Strassburg, battle of 340, 349.
succession 356.
suitors of Penelope 300 f., 363.
Sunilda 10, 160 f. (cf. Svanhildr).
supernatural beings 114 ff., 250 ff.
supernatural properties 128 f., 262.
Svanhildr 14, 16, 37, 157 (cf. Sunilda).
Swedes (Sweon, Svíar) 2, 15, 20, 31, 153 f., 367 ff., 399.
Tacitus 78, 349, 368 f., 413.
Tchakaray (Zakar) 188 f.
Telemachos 242 f.
Tell-el-Amarna 188, 192, 455.
Thebais 171.
Theodberht 23 f., 462.
Theodric 3, 19, 23, 25, 29 ff, 154 f., 373, 461 (cf. Dietrich von Bern).
Thersites 228.
Theseus 266.
Thessaly 232, 269 ff.
Thetis 264, 418 f.
Thiðreks Saga af Bern 9, 57, 134, 138 f., 145 f.
Thióðolfr 15, 91.
Thor 11, 253, 394 ff., 404.
Thórgerðr Hölgabrúðr 252, 401 f.
Thorkillus 258 f.
Thraco-Phrygian peoples 178 f., 190, 457 f.
Thucydides 286, 293, 308 ff.
Tiryns 452, 454.
tragic poets 171 f.
tribal heroes 267 ff.
Troy (Hissarlik) 200, 294 f., 309.
Tyrtaios 226, 331.
Uffo 17, 61.
Unferth 159, 347.
Upsala 154, 206, 368, 377, 399 f., 407.
Valhalla (Valhöll) 254, 396 ff., 410 ff.
Valkyries 254, 397, 411 f.
Vandals 31, 86, 115, 369, 371, 445, 460.
Vellekla 16, 254.
Venantius Fortunatus 85.
vengeance 344 f., 353.
Vidigoia 27, 62 (cf. Widia).
Viking Age 25, 90 ff., 100, 251 ff., 342, 404, 406 f.
Virgil 74 ff.
Völsunga Saga 16, 145 ff., 164, 251.
Völundarkviða 12, 132, 134 f.
Völuspá 11, 229.
Waldhere (Waltharius) 2, 6, 38 f., 57 f., 137 ff., 151 f., 161 f., 333, 341, 376 f.
Waltharius (see Waldhere).
Wanderer (poem) 3, 92, 350.
Warni 97 f.
Warrior Vase 185, 191, 451 f.
Weland 3, 9, 12, 132 ff.
Welsh heroic poetry 105 ff.
Weoxtan 20, 159, 329 f., 340, 347, 350.
wergelds 345, 352, 354, 365.
Widia 27, 132, 135 (cf. Vidigoia, Witege, Wudga).
Widsith 2, 20 f., 26, 56, 81, 87 f.
Widsith (name) 43 f.
Wiglaf 159, 328 f., 349.
Willebrord 259.
Witege 8 f., 19, 27, 31, 132, 135 (cf. Widia).
Woden (Wodan) 115, 405, 408 ff. (cf. Othin).
Wolfdietrich 8, 23, 155.
women in the Heroic Age 337 f., 372.
Worms 6 f., 146.
writing 211 ff.
Wudga 19 f., 27, 331 (cf. Widia).
Xanten 7, 31.
Xanthos 437 f., 467.
Ynglinga Saga 16, 367, 397, 399.
Yngvi 367, 405.
Zakar (see Tchakaray).
Zeus 416 ff.
Zeus Agamemnon 381.
Transcriber's Notes:
Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were silently corrected.
Anachronistic and non-standard spellings retained as printed.
Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.
Bold markup is enclosed in =equals=.