FOOTNOTES:
[629] Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, XV 9. 8 (probably from Timagenes): et Bardi quidem fortia uirorum illustrium facta heroicis composita uersibus cum dulcibus lyrae modulis cantitarunt. Cf. also Diodoros, V 31; Strabo, IV 4. 4; Lucan, Phars. I 447 ff.
[630] Cf. Athenaios, VI 49 (quoting Poseidonios): Κελτοὶ περιάγονται μεθ' αὑτῶν καὶ πολεμοῦντες συμβιωτὰς οὓς καλοῦσι παρασίτους. οὗτοι δὲ ἐγκώμια αὐτῶν καὶ πρὸς ἀθρόους λέγουσιν ἀνθρώπους συνεστῶτας καὶ πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐκείνων ἀκροωμένων. τὰ δὲ ἀκούσματα αὐτῶν εἰσιν οἱ καλούμενοι Βάρδοι· ποιηταὶ δὲ οὗτοι τυγχάνουσι μετ' ᾠδῆς ἐπαίνους λέγοντες. Reference may also be made to the story of Luernios, king of the Allobroges, and the minstrel who arrived too late (ib., IV 37). Cf. also Appian, Celtice, § 12 (describing the arrival of an envoy sent by Bitoitos, the father of Luernios): μουσικός τε ἀνὴρ εἵπετο, βαρβάρῳ μουσικῇ τὸν βασιλέα Βιτοῖτον, εἶτ' Ἀλλόβριγας, εἶτα τὸν πρεσβευτὴν αὐτὸν ἔς τε γένος καὶ ἀνδρείαν καὶ περιουσίαν ὑμνῶν· οὗ δὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἕνεκα αὐτοὺς οἱ τῶν πρεσβευτῶν ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπάγονται.
[631] κατὰ δὲ τὰς παρατάξεις εἰώθασι προάγειν τῆς παρατάξεως καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων τοὺς ἀρίστους εἰς μονομαχίαν, προανασείοντες τὰ ὅπλα καὶ καταπληττόμενοι τοὺς ἐναντίους. ὅταν δέ τις ὑπακούσῃ πρὸς τὴν μάχην τάς τε τῶν προγόνων ἀνδραγαθίας ἐξυμνοῦσι καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀρετὰς προφέρονται καὶ τὸν ἀντιταττόμενον ἐξονειδίζουσι καὶ ταπεινοῦσι καὶ τὸ σύνολον τὸ θάρσος τῆς ψυχῆς τοῖς λόγοις προαφαιροῦνται (V 29).
[632] πλησίον δ' αὐτῶν ἐσχάραι κεῖνται γέμουσαι πυρὸς καὶ λέβητας ἔχουσαι καὶ ὀβελοὺς πλήρεις κρεῶν ὁλομερῶν. τοὺς δ' ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας ταῖς καλλίσταις τῶν κρεῶν μοίραις γεραίρουσι.... καλοῦσι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ξένους ἐπὶ τὰς εὐωχίας καὶ μετὰ τὸ δεῖπνον ἐπερωτῶσι τίνες εἰσὶ καὶ τίνων χρείαν ἔχουσιν (ib. 28).
[633] We may compare also what is said (ib. I 20) of the relations of Diuiciacus and Dumnorix. The latter had a large comitatus of his own: magnum numerum equitatus suo sumptu semper alere et circum se habere (I 18).
[634] Cf. Livy, V 34.
[635] The rise of the Cumbrian kingdoms presents a difficulty which historians do not seem to me to have sufficiently realised. During the fourth and fifth centuries the northern parts of the province were repeatedly menaced and ravaged by Pictish invaders. Yet after the fifth century we hear practically nothing more of Picts in the south of Scotland (except in Galloway). On the other hand it was in this region that the Britons offered the most determined resistance to the English. In the latter part of the sixth century Urien is said (Hist. Br., § 63) to have besieged them on one occasion in Lindisfarne (Metcaud); and in Strathclyde the Britons maintained their independence, except for one or two brief intervals, until long after the disappearance of the Northumbrian kingdom. It is often assumed, though on somewhat slender grounds, that the Britons held only the south-west of Scotland and that the south-east (Lothian, etc.) was Pictish before the English conquest. But this hypothesis does not get rid of the difficulties; for it is from Manau Guotodin, a district always regarded as Pictish, that Cunedda is said to have come (ib., § 62). I suspect that the distinction between Picts and Britons was not so rigid as is commonly supposed. Unfortunately Celtic scholars have not yet been able to come to any agreement as to the character of the Pictish language. Some hold that it was British (Brythonic), others Gaelic (Goidelic), others again non-Celtic. Possibly all these views may contain a certain amount of truth. At all events it seems to me quite incredible that Gaelic was not introduced into Scotland before the sixth century. All indications appear to me to favour the view that this language belonged to a wave of Celtic invasion earlier than the British. Yet I see no objection to supposing that in pre-Roman times the true (Gaelic) Picts—who probably included a non-Celtic substratum—may have been overlaid in part by a British element. If so, it is far from improbable that the south of Scotland in its turn received a 'Pictish' element, when that district was abandoned by the Romans. A mixed population of this kind would readily enough coalesce with the native (British) inhabitants.
[636] So also in the Heroic Ages of non-European peoples. Important parallels are certainly furnished by Sanskrit epic poetry.
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.