The Heroic Age

by H. Munro Chadwick

In the first place it must be observed that the existence of a poem or story which deals with reminiscences of tribal conflicts necessarily presupposes an absorbing interest in tribal history. It will probably be admitted by everyone that this interest can hardly have been of an academic character; indeed, we may assume, I think, that it must be inspired by patriotic motives. If so, the foremost place will naturally be taken by that tribe or community with which the story originated. Now it is generally agreed that the Homeric poems contain both Aeolic and Ionic elements. Further, though opinions differ widely as to the relative importance of the two, there is a practical unanimity in believing that the Aeolic element is the earlier one. The tribal interest then, at least in the earlier elements in the poems, should be essentially Aeolic. For 'Aeolic' we may practically say Thessalian (using the term of course in a geographical sense); for the Aeolic settlements, mainly at least, had proceeded from Thessaly. But Achilles, the chief hero of the Iliad, himself belongs to Thessaly; and so all is well. Further, many scholars hold that the later or Ionic elements in the poem are marked by the introduction of Nestor. There was, apparently, a tradition current in Colophon that the inhabitants of that city had originally come from Pylos. Nestor therefore may be regarded as typifying the later or Ionic interests of the Iliad, just as Achilles typifies its earlier or Aeolic interests. This opinion however is by no means so widely entertained as the other.

So much for the Iliad; now let us turn to the Odyssey. Here we are confronted with a serious difficulty. Odysseus is at least as much the hero of the Odyssey as Achilles is of the Iliad. But Odysseus belongs to the Ionian Isles; and there is no trace of either an Aeolic or an Ionic population in these islands. It is not surprising then that the Odyssey is put aside by the advocates of the theory which we are discussing. The tendency is to regard it as a later work—originating perhaps at a time when tribal interests had become forgotten. We must confine our attention therefore to the Iliad.

As applied to the Iliad the theory was long ago seen to be open to one serious objection. Achilles is the only one of the chief Achaean leaders who can be referred to Thessaly. His nearest neighbour is the Locrian Aias; but the Locrians, in spite of their connection with Troy, cannot be regarded as an Aeolic people. All the other Achaean leaders who may be termed 'heroes of the first rank' belong to the southern and western parts of Greece. Their positions geographically cannot be reconciled with the theory of Aeolic tribal wars. In order to obviate this difficulty various suggestions have been put forward. On the one hand we have Prof. Bethe's hypothesis which brings the Trojan leaders, Hector and Paris, to the north-eastern parts of Greece. Upon this enough has been said above. On the other hand there is an older and still very popular hypothesis, according to which some of the southern leaders, Agamemnon in particular, originally belonged to the northern parts of the country. It is to this that we must now turn our attention.

In the Iliad Mycenae is represented as being the home of Agamemnon. But it has been observed that this place is comparatively seldom mentioned, and that sometimes Agamemnon is said to rule over 'Argos.' Unfortunately there is a considerable amount of ambiguity in the use of the latter name. Occasionally it denotes the well-known city in Argolis; but more often it is clearly used in a much wider sense, for the Peloponnesos or the whole of Greece. Once however (II 681) we find the expression τὸ Πελασγικὸν Ἄργος as a name for the home of Achilles. In ancient times the meaning of this expression was not known. Some authorities believed it to be the name of a city, while others understood it as a designation for the plain of Thessaly. Many modern scholars have adopted the latter interpretation. But further, they hold that this was the original Argos, and that the application of that name to the Peloponnesos or any part of it is due to a misunderstanding on the part of later (Ionic) poets, by whose time the northern Argos had been forgotten.

In favour of this view Prof. Cauer[420] brings forward the following arguments. "If Agamemnon, as well as Achilles, belongs to the oldest elements in the story, he also must come from a land in which Aeolic was spoken; and indeed not Aeolic in the extended sense which the ancients gave the term—where the name includes Elean and Arcadian—but Lesbian-Aeolic. This was, as inscriptions show, the language of the original inhabitants of Thessaly." Again "Agamemnon started with his fleet from Aulis.... He was associated with Achilles in the story from the beginning. His Argeioi are the companions of the Achaeans led by Achilles. The two tribal names are used for one another indifferently, and either of them can be employed as a designation for the forces which fought at Troy. Consequently the Argeioi and the Achaeans must have been neighbours." Further, it is urged by Prof. Cauer that the epithet ἱππόβοτον as applied to the Peloponnesian Argos is inappropriate. This state possessed no cavalry in the fifth century, and none of consequence at any time. On the other hand it is a very suitable epithet for the plain of the Peneios; Thessalian cavalry were famous. Lastly, it is argued that the expression καθ' (ἀν') Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος, which occurs four times in the Odyssey, must originally have denoted two neighbouring districts, though in the passages in question it is used in a very wide sense—perhaps for all Greece.

The last argument does not seem to me to have any decisive bearing upon the question under discussion. If we admit, as I think we must, that Homeric poetry is essentially Aeolic and that Aeolis was settled mainly from Thessaly, it is only natural that the poems should preserve traces of traditional Thessalian phraseology, just as they preserve poetic conceptions which must have originated in the same country. But, though we grant that the phrases in question may possibly have been used originally of the Thessalian Argos mentioned in II 681, we are not bound thereby to conclude that this was the only Argos known to the earliest poems on the siege of Troy. Again, it is scarcely inconceivable that the traditional epithet ἱππόβοτον may have been transferred from one Argos to the other, though on the other hand there seems to be good reason for doubting whether the application of this term to the Peloponnesian Argos is as much out of place as has been alleged[421]. Still less cogent is the argument relating to Aulis. For the assembling of such a fleet as the story describes the choice of a convenient central position in sheltered waters would be suggested by the most elementary notions of strategy.

All these however are comparatively minor considerations. I doubt if they would have been seriously brought forward except as reinforcements to the main contention—viz. that Agamemnon, like Achilles, must have come from an Aeolic district, if he belongs to the oldest elements in the story. It is surprising to see how this principle appears to have commanded the assent of Homeric scholars. To anyone who has made a study of Teutonic heroic poetry such an argument seems nothing less than absurd. Out of 132 personal names which occur in the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems only three or four, so far as we know, belong to persons of English nationality (cf. p. [32] ff.). Beowulf is concerned almost exclusively with the doings of princes of the Danes, Götar and Swedes. In Waldhere, another English poem, the characters are Burgundians and (perhaps) Franks; in the German Hildebrandslied they are apparently Goths. The Norse poems of the Older Edda are occupied chiefly with the adventures of Huns, Burgundians and Goths. What need then is there for supposing that Agamemnon must have belonged to the same branch of the Greek race as Achilles? And what need is there for supposing that an Aeolic poem must contain any Aeolic characters at all? In the Odyssey it is not the case. In the Iliad, as we have it, only a small proportion of the characters at most can be regarded as Aeolic[422].

The reason why Agamemnon must belong to an Aeolic district is clearly to be found in the assumption that both he and Achilles were originally not individuals but personifications of tribes. Starting from this assumption we become involved in a series of hypotheses each of which is dependent upon the preceding one. i. The sources of the Iliad were concerned only, or at least chiefly, with the fortunes of tribes (though in point of fact the Iliad, as it stands, is concerned only with the fortunes of individuals). ii. These tribes belonged to adjacent districts (though in fact the heroes of the Iliad are represented as coming from nearly all parts of Greece). iii. Since Achilles belongs to an Aeolic district, Agamemnon and the Argos over which he rules must be located in the same quarter. But the third hypothesis is by no means the only one which is dependent upon the second. Menelaos must have been transferred from the north, i.e. from Thessaly, with his brother. Again, Pylos lies far away from any Aeolic district. Here we have a choice between two hypotheses. Some hold that Nestor, like Agamemnon, belonged originally to Thessaly (the district of the river Enipeus); others that he is a late and Ionic addition to the story. With Diomedes the case is somewhat similar. He cannot have ruled over Argos even in the second stage of the story; for then, before Mycenae was introduced, Argos belonged to Agamemnon. Either then he has been transferred from Aetolia, the home of his ancestors; or he is a late addition, due to Ionic poets. Again, Idomeneus' case is due to 'attraction'; originally he belonged to quite a different cycle of story, like Tlepolemos. Aias, the son of Telamon, is clearly a 'doublet' of the Locrian Aias; and so forth. By this process we are enabled to dispose satisfactorily of all the southern Greek heroes.

It will be seen that according to some scholars only a few of the leading heroes belonged to the original form of the story, and that their number has grown by gradual accretions. According to others the majority were there from the beginning; but they belonged originally to the northern parts of Greece, more especially the Aeolic districts. With reference to this latter view it may be observed that the Aeolic districts are by no means unrepresented in the Iliad as we have it. On the contrary we find a considerable number of leaders both from Thessaly and Boeotia; but they are all what we may term 'heroes of the second rank.' Are we to suppose that these are 'Ionic' substitutions for the original heroes, when the latter were transferred to the southern parts of Greece?