A third argument, and one which has exercised a much wider influence, is based on the relationship of certain portions of the poems to the lost Cyclic poems (Cypria, etc.). It is held for instance that the Catalogues in Il. II, at all events the Trojan catalogue, were taken from the Cypria, and again that in the Nekyia (Od. XI) and elsewhere use has been made of the Little Iliad and the Nostoi, as well as the Cypria. But, granting the correctness of these hypotheses, no conclusions as to date can be drawn from them unless the dates of the lost poems themselves are established. We have seen however that such is not really the case; it is admitted that the attribution of these poems to Arctinos, Lesches and others does not occur until very late times. All that can be said is that they appear to have contained certain 'post-Homeric' features, such as purification for manslaughter (in the Aithiopis). With these we shall have to deal later. There is no need however to suppose that the lost poems were any more homogeneous than the Iliad and Odyssey.
Again it is thought that certain passages betray the influence of Hesiodic poetry, while others indicate genealogies or relationships which are at variance with statements contained in the latter[302]. Among the former we may note especially the list of women in the Nekyia (Od. XI 235-327[303]), which is compared with the Hesiodic Catalogue of heroines. This evidence would be useful for chronological purposes if we knew (i) when Hesiod lived, (ii) that he was the first to compose catalogues of this kind But unfortunately neither of these propositions can be admitted. To the first we have already referred. The majority of scholars hold that Hesiod cannot have lived much after the end of the eighth century. But there is nothing to show that he did not live before that time; for no sound argument can be founded on the last verses of the Theogony. As for the Catalogue it belongs to a class of poetry of which the beginnings may go back to a remote antiquity. The presumption is that it originated in times when descent was still traced through the mother.
On internal grounds many arguments have been brought forward for the purpose of showing that the poems in their present form have undergone a long process of development. With discrepancies in the narrative itself we need not concern ourselves. They are doubtless of importance for determining the question of single or composite authorship, but they do not necessarily point to authorship of quite different ages. For instance, one poet may have conceived of the Achaean camp as fortified, another as without fortifications. But that does not prove that the two poets were not contemporary, for it will not be disputed that the people of the Heroic Age were capable of building fortifications. Again, it may be that the original poem on the 'Wrath of Achilles' did not originally contain Books II-VII. But, apart from one or two details which we shall discuss presently, there is nothing to suggest that these books are the product of an entirely different period.
We may even take what is perhaps the most extreme case, that of the Doloneia. This book is joined on very loosely to what precedes, and its contents are practically disregarded in the rest of the Iliad[304]. Some critics even in ancient times seem to have believed that it did not originally belong to the poem. Moreover it contains a number of features peculiar to itself and several expressions which are regarded as indications of lateness. In particular there are some striking parallels to the passages in the Odyssey, and it is held that in certain cases they are due to direct influence from the latter[305]. But, granting all this, we are still not in a position to decide whether the chronological difference between the Doloneia and the earlier parts of the Iliad is to be reckoned at three centuries or two or one[306].
As no definite results can be attained from such considerations as these we will now confine our attention to arguments which are founded upon real or supposed differences of culture. The most important class of evidence for our purpose is that which relates to the use of the metals. Both bronze and iron are frequently mentioned and there can be no doubt that both were well known. But it has been observed that weapons are nearly always said to be of bronze (χαλκός, χάλκεον ἔγχος, etc.[307]), whereas iron is usually mentioned either as a substance or in reference to tools, especially hatchets[308]. Only in seven verses do we hear of iron weapons, even if we include in this category the knives mentioned in Il. XVIII 34 and XXIII 30. Two verses (ib. VII 141, 143 f.) speak of an iron club and one (ib. IV 123) of an arrowhead, while the other two (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) refer to the arms in Odysseus' house collectively.
The obvious inference from the statistics is that iron tools came into use before iron weapons, and though this was long thought incredible it has recently been shown that there is some evidence for the prevalence of such conditions in Palestine[309]. Moreover a somewhat striking confirmation of the Homeric evidence was furnished by the excavations at Troy, where a small lump of unwrought iron was found among deposits belonging apparently to the fifth stratum[310]. It has been compared, and doubtless rightly, with the lump mentioned in Il. XXIII 826 ff., though the latter must have been much larger. The presumption is that, like this, it was intended for some tool or agricultural implement; for all the weapons found at Troy—few as they were unfortunately—up to the seventh stratum were of bronze. It is probable therefore that the use of the metals not only in the fifth stratum but also in the sixth—the great Mycenean fortress—was similar to that which is indicated in the Homeric poems.
For those who believe that these poems are the work of a single author the words "Iron does of itself attract a man[311]" (Od. XVI 294, XIX 13) present a serious difficulty. I cannot believe in view of the evidence given above that iron weapons were regularly employed in the Heroic Age[312] and that the use of the word χαλκός is a piece of traditional poetic archaism. Otherwise however there is no alternative but to regard the Odyssey verse as an interpolation[313]. But in reality it is no great step from iron knives and arrow-heads to the use of the same metal for spears or even swords. If we were to adopt the view that the age of the composition of the Homeric poems coincides with the period of transition between the first use of iron for cutting and piercing instruments to its general employment for weapons of all kinds, we should not necessarily require much more than a century for their development. Indeed the presence of iron swords in graves of the sub-Mycenean period in Crete (cf. p. [185]) would seem to show that the transition had begun within what may be regarded practically as the Heroic Age itself.
Again, it is held that many anachronisms or chronological inconsistencies appear in the battle scenes of the Iliad. Sometimes we find descriptions of armour and tactics which are thought to be copied from those of Ionic hoplites in early historical times and to be irreconcilable with the type of warfare depicted in other passages. Many of the chief men are represented as armed with breast-plates, for which, it is said, there is no evidence in the Mycenean age[314]—though this statement is more than doubtful[315]. In regard to the form of the shield also there is a discrepancy. Sometimes it is described as being of great length, 'like a tower' or 'reaching to the feet'—terms which would suit the long shields often depicted on objects of the Mycenean age. Sometimes on the other hand we hear of 'round' shields, which suggest the comparatively small circular shield of the historical period.
These inconsistencies only concern us in so far as they are supposed to point to widely different ages. Unfortunately our information regarding the geometrical period is still very defective and we do not know how far its characteristics were the same in all parts of Greece. The same remarks apply with still greater force to the preceding or sub-Mycenean age. Hence, though it may be true that the round shield does not make its appearance in Attica till the close of the eighth century, we cannot argue from this that it was unknown in other parts of Greece[316]. In the more northern parts of Europe it appears to be the earliest form of shield which has been found. More important however is the fact that the Shardina and their confederates used the round shield as far back as the thirteenth century, while the shields represented on the Warrior Vase and the Stele from Mycenae (cf. p. [185]) can hardly be regarded otherwise than as a variety of the same type. Hence, whatever may be the connection between the disappearance of the long shield and the growing use of body armour, there is not the slightest justification for supposing that the round variety was not used in the Heroic Age itself.
The commonest type of Mycenean shield, the oval type contracted in the middle, belongs to a class of shields which occur in various parts of the world. It is probably akin to the Zulu shield, though in this the lateral contraction has lost its meaning and almost disappeared. The primary purpose of the whole class appears to be for defence against missile weapons (ἕρκος ἀκόντων), whether light javelins or arrows. But the special characteristic of the Mycenean variety is the use of a suspending strap (τελαμών[317]) in place of a handle. The object of this was to leave both hands free for the use of a long spear in fighting at close quarters—as we see in the representation of a lion-hunt engraved on a dagger-blade found at Mycenae. But it is to be observed that the method of fighting most commonly employed by Homeric warriors is of quite a different character. First the spear was hurled—apparently with one hand (cf. Il. XXII 320)—and then an attack was made with the sword. For both these movements the Mycenean shield was obviously ill adapted. Indeed for the second, which required agility above everything, it would be more of an encumbrance than a protection. But even when the spear was used for thrusting there is nothing to show that it was usually held in both hands[318]. Hence we can hardly avoid concluding that the Homeric tactics were due to the use of a different type of armature, which included a comparatively small and mobile shield. We need not suppose of course that the Mycenean shield was unknown or even uncommon. It seems fairly clear that Aias the son of Telamon uses one of this type[319], and so also Periphetes the Mycenean whose shield reached to his feet and caused him to stumble (Il. XV 645 ff.)[320].