The Heroic Age

by H. Munro Chadwick

But what were the conditions which produced this elaborate and highly artificial type of poetry? The characteristics of Homeric poetry enumerated above are conclusive evidence that it was not of popular origin. Some of them are extremely difficult to account for unless its true home was in the king's courts. It may be objected that Hesiod was familiar with Homeric poetry, though he knew nothing of court life. But Hesiod probably belonged to the last days of the kingly period, when that institution was losing its power and popularity. It is only in accordance with what we might expect that in such an age court poets—in view of Theog. 94 f. we should perhaps say minstrels—would frequently try to get a hearing from a wider circle. Hesiod's own activity falls in with this explanation perfectly well. His popularity was due to the fact that he preserved the artistic form of court poetry, while at the same time he discarded its conventions and turned to subjects which were more in accordance with the tastes and interests of his own class.

Apart from the courts it is difficult to see where conditions favourable to the growth of Homeric poetry could have existed. Aeolis in the eighth century must have differed very greatly from the city states of the sixth and fifth centuries. Hesiod himself belonged to a family which was possessed of some property. His father was a merchant; but we can hardly suppose that this class was either numerous or wealthy, in a land which consisted essentially of agricultural communities. We shall hardly go astray, I think, in believing that the conditions here at the time of which we are speaking bore far more resemblance to those which prevailed in Teutonic kingdoms some twelve or thirteen centuries later than to those of cities like Miletos or Athens at their prime. There as here the wealth was probably to a large extent in the possession of the kings. Indeed from the story of Midas' relations with Agamemnon of Cyme (cf. p. [227]) we may perhaps infer that the kings retained a certain amount of influence even in the latter part of the eighth century. On the other hand the name of this king may certainly be taken as evidence that the courts were interested in heroic poetry[361].

We have now seen that Homeric poetry goes back to the age of kingship and that it is not of popular origin (Stage III), but in all probability a product of court life. Our next object must be to consider whether this poetry was a direct continuation of the court-minstrelsy of the Heroic Age (Stage I), represented by Demodocos and Phemios—in which case of course it will correspond to Stage II of our scheme—or whether it is rather a secondary outgrowth from popular poetry (Stage IV). The problem, it will be seen, is essentially one of stratification. If we may, in archaeological language, speak of the Homeric poems as a 'palace-structure'—it ought surely to be possible to determine whether traces of a 'village settlement' lie immediately beneath it.

It has been pointed out above (p. [224] f.) that the Nibelungenlied cannot furnish any true analogy to the history of Homeric poetry. The other type of Stage IV which we have considered (p. [99] f.) is that of the Edda poems. But I do not think that anyone will seriously expect to find a strict parallel here. In that case we should have to suppose that heroic poetry was originally unknown to the Aeolians, whether in Asia or Thessaly. But the Thessalian element—including as it does such striking conceptions as the location of the gods on Mount Olympos—is too deeply engrained in this class of poetry to render such a hypothesis probable. We shall see shortly that a better analogy for the history of the Edda poems is perhaps to be found in quite a different quarter.

The theory which obtains most currency at the present time is that Homeric poetry grew up in the Greek settlements on the Asiatic coast on the basis of ballads derived from Thessaly—perhaps also from other parts of Greece. This theory does not exactly answer to our definition of Stage IV; but we may treat it under the same heading, as it likewise involves the development of heroic poetry out of popular poetry. According to any explanation of this kind we must of course assume that the court-minstrelsy depicted in the poems is a reflection of court life in the Asiatic settlements. This is conceivable enough in itself, provided that the requisite conditions are carried back at least to the ninth century. But is the theory probable? No one will suggest, I suppose, that the wealth or culture of the Aeolic settlements during the tenth and ninth centuries was superior to that of the Greek kingdoms in general towards the close of the Achaean period. Briefly stated then the current theory comes to this: the wealthier and more cultured period produced nothing but popular ballads, while the poorer and ruder period produced a most elaborate and magnificent court poetry.

We have seen that Homeric poetry possesses certain characteristics which are incompatible with the idea that it is itself of popular origin. But a closer inspection will show that some of these characteristics are almost as difficult to account for on the hypothesis that it was a recent outgrowth from popular poetry. In particular this is true of their metrical form, if we are justified in believing that the Homeric type of verse presupposes a long artistic development. Again, the confusion of different stories which characterises popular poetry (Stage III) will not be removed in its more cultivated successor (Stage IV); Dietrich von Bern (Theodric) remains by the side of Etzel (Attila) in the Nibelungenlied. The same remark too applies to those changes of character which popular poetry is apt to produce. In the Nibelungenlied Hagen remains as cruel and Kriemhild as passionately vindictive as popular fancy had painted them. The poets of a later age will not trouble themselves to save the characters of persons who lived long ago. We shall see shortly that this is true of Greek poetry just as much as of German. But the Homeric poems—except perhaps in the Nekyia—will not supply us with examples.

Finally, we must bear in mind those reminiscences of Mycenean—or rather 'sub-Mycenean'—splendour which the poems contain and their almost invariable use of bronze as the material for weapons—not to mention the fact that the political and national boundaries which they record are totally different from those which existed in the ninth century. Will anyone seriously maintain that such traditions could be preserved through the medium of popular ballads alone? I confess that such a hypothesis is altogether incredible to me.

Now let us take the alternative explanation, suggested by the Anglo-Saxon poems. It is generally agreed that the Aeolic settlements are older than the Ionic in Asia; but since even the former are ignored in the poems it is hardly probable that they came into existence until towards the close of the Achaean period. When the storms broke upon Greece crowds of refugees, not only from Thessaly but also from many other parts of the country, fled to the new Aeolic settlements across the Aegean. Among them, according to the suggested analogy, were many court minstrels, of the type represented by Demodocos and Phemios, who brought with them not only a poetic technique matured by long experience but also a number of poems, of which the newest would probably be the most in favour. This poetry was developed and expanded by the court minstrels of subsequent generations; but the subject-matter became stereotyped and—precisely as in England—everything relating to the new settlements was completely ignored. This is the conclusion to which all the evidence at our disposal seems to me to point.