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.