EARLY GREEK POETRY AND MINSTRELSY.
In Chapter V we saw that four well-marked stages may be distinguished
in the history of Teutonic heroic poetry. The first is that of strictly
contemporary court poetry, dealing with the praises or the adventures
of living men. The second is that of epic or narrative court poetry,
which celebrates the deeds of heroes of the past, though not of a very
remote past. The third is the popular stage, during which the same
stories were handled by village minstrels. The last stage is that in
which the old subjects again found favour with the nobility in Germany
and were treated in a new form which reflected the conditions of the
age of chivalry. We must now see whether any such stages can be traced
in the history of Greek heroic poetry.
For the first stage plenty of evidence is supplied by the Homeric
poems. In the Odyssey we meet with several persons who seem to be
professional court minstrels. Such are Demodocos at the court of
Alcinoos and Phemios at that of Odysseus, while others are mentioned at
the courts of Agamemnon and Menelaos. Both Demodocos and Phemios are
represented as singing of recent events, namely the adventures of the
Achaeans on their return from Troy, though the former also produces
one song upon a mythical subject. The song or recitation is invariably
accompanied upon a lyre, probably much in the same way as the Teutonic
minstrel used his harp[356].
As among the Teutonic peoples, we hear also occasionally of royal
minstrels. Paris appears to be a skilful musician (Il. III 54), while
Achilles is amusing himself by singing the 'glories of heroes' (κλέα
ἀνδρῶν) when he is visited by Aias and Odysseus (_ib._ IX 189). But the
status of even the professional minstrel was, sometimes at least, one
of considerable importance. Agamemnon, on his departure to Troy, is
said to have entrusted his queen to the care of a certain minstrel (Od.
III 267 f.)--a case which may be compared with several Teutonic stories
relating both to the Heroic Age and the Viking Age. The Phaeacian
minstrel Demodocos is blind, like the Frisian Bernlef; but, unlike the
latter, he seems to have a recognised position at Alcinoos' court.
He is evidently regarded as a person of distinction; in VIII 483 we
find him described as ἥρως, a term frequently applied to princes. For
minstrels of Bernlef's type we have no clear evidence in the Homeric
poems. In Od. XVII 382 ff. we hear of invitations given to minstrels;
but the reference may be to persons of Widsith's class. The same seems
to be true of the Thracian minstrel Thamyris mentioned in Il. II 595
ff.; for it is stated that he was coming from Eurytos of Oichalia when
disaster befell him.
On the whole then the court minstrelsy of the Homeric poems bears a
striking resemblance to that of the Teutonic Heroic Age. We cannot,
it is true, obtain any corroborative evidence for its existence from
contemporary historical documents. But the negative evidence is almost
as decisive. Even in the earliest times of which we have record no
trace of such an institution is to be found in Greece. We hear of
rhapsodists at Sicyon as early as the beginning of the sixth century;
but they are clearly persons of Bernlef's type, reciting 'Homeric'
poems, i.e. stories of ancient times. Moreover they were viewed with
disfavour by the ruler. Another type of professional poet may be seen
in such persons as Alcman. These were what may be called 'state-poets';
sometimes they were trainers of the state choruses. But there is
nothing to show that they were court poets. We hear also of poets,
sometimes men of noble birth, like Eumelos, who composed hymns for
festal occasions. But these too worked for the glorification of the
state, or indeed for that of any state which employed them, and their
position was essentially different from that of the court minstrel who
composes for his lord's gratification. Minstrelsy of the Homeric type
is conceivable only in an age of real kingship, and it is incredible
that such a type could have been invented after that institution had
ceased to exist. Indeed the nearest Greek analogy to it is probably to
be found in such poets as Anacreon who flourished at the courts of the
later tyrants. Their poems however dealt with an entirely different
class of subjects.
It is true that minstrels are mentioned beside kings in a passage
in Hesiod's Theogony (v. 94 ff.), both being said to derive their
endowment from divine sources[357]. But there is nothing to show that
these were court minstrels. At all events it is clear enough from
another passage in the same poem (v. 22 ff.), as well as from the Works
and Days, that Hesiod himself was not a man of this type. Moreover,
the subjects with which the minstrels are said to deal are the 'famous
deeds (glories) of men of old' (κλέεα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων). The reference
then is to heroic poetry, but in a stage not earlier than Stage II of
our scheme. The passage however is undoubtedly interesting as showing a
stage intermediate between Homeric minstrels and the later rhapsodists.
From the word κιθαρισταί we may perhaps infer that the musical
accompaniment, which the latter seem to have discarded, was still in
use.
* * * * *
Probably no one will suggest that the Homeric poems themselves are
products of the type of minstrelsy (Stage I) which we have been
considering. Now therefore we must try to ascertain which of the other
three stages they correspond to. Curiously enough no such question as
this appears to have been discussed in any of the numerous Homeric
researches which the last half century has produced. Nearly all writers
have completely ignored the existence of the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems.
On the other hand medieval German poems, such as the Nibelungenlied,
have been freely used in illustration of Homeric problems, and there
can be no question that in many respects the supposed analogy has had
far-reaching influence on their interpretation. In the application of
these illustrations as a rule no account whatever has been taken of
what we may call the stratification of Teutonic heroic poetry.
Let us now consider briefly the history of the Nibelungenlied. We have
seen that the origin of the story is to be sought in poems composed
probably within memory of certain events with which it deals, and that
the subject appears to have been worked up into a somewhat elaborate
form within the next two centuries. It can scarcely be doubted that
these early poems were products of court-minstrelsy and that their
form was that of the old Teutonic alliterative verse. Later however
there came a time when all heroic poetry passed out of fashion among
the higher classes, and when this story, like the rest, must have been
preserved only by village minstrels. Then, after a lapse of several
centuries, it appears again in an entirely different metrical form,
and permeated through and through with the ideas and customs of the
age of chivalry. Little beyond the bare outlines of the story can have
been inherited from the original poems, and even these appear to have
undergone considerable modification.
Now if the history of Homeric poetry is really parallel to this, we
shall have to suppose that the stories were first treated in court
poetry about the close of the pre-migration period; that after
flourishing for a while they fell out of favour in royal circles and
were preserved only by village minstrels, at whose hands they underwent
a long process of disintegration; and that finally they formed the
basis of new aristocratic poems some six or seven centuries after they
first saw the light. In order to present a complete parallel the later
poems must use a new metrical form, of foreign derivation, which will
preclude the possibility of their containing a single verse of the
original poems. The customs and ideas too which they reflect must be
wholly, or almost wholly, those of their own period, and not those of
the Heroic Age.
But it is manifest that this description will not fit the Homeric
poems in any way. According to the opinion held by the majority of
scholars the customs and ideas reflected by the Homeric poems are
inconsistent--sometimes they are those of the Heroic Age, sometimes
those of the poets' own age. Indeed many scholars hold that the
former type predominates. Personally I am not ready to admit that
the difference between the two ages was anything like so great as is
commonly assumed. But in any case it must be granted that in some
respects, e.g. in regard to political geography and the use of the
metals, the conditions of the Heroic Age are truly reflected almost
everywhere. Further it is commonly held that considerable portions of
the poems go back, more or less in their present form, not perhaps
to the Heroic Age itself, but at all events a long distance in that
direction. We must conclude therefore that, unless modern criticism has
gone hopelessly astray, the Nibelungenlied presents no true analogy to
the history of the Homeric poems.
Now let us take the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems. It is obvious enough that
here there is at all events a superficial resemblance between the two
cases, although the Greek poems are on a much larger scale. Both sets
of poems are the work of colonists who had crossed the sea, and both
equally suppress all reference to the existence of such settlements. It
is true that the scene of the Iliad is laid in a district not far from
that in which it appears to have been composed. But this district is
represented as being in possession of an alien people. The compatriots
of the poets--who clearly speak from the Achaean side--are uniformly
represented as dwelling on the west of the Aegean. But these after all
are merely accidental coincidences. Far more important for us is the
fact, which we have already noted, that both sets of poems carry the
history of heroic poetry back to court minstrels who are represented as
living in the Heroic Age itself. The question which we have to face is
whether or not the Iliad and Odyssey likewise resemble the Anglo-Saxon
poems in being themselves products of court-minstrelsy in direct
continuation of that which they depict as existing in the Heroic Age.
If this question is incapable of being answered we must, I think,
conclude that the historical study of early Greek poetry is futile. No
impartial observer can fail to have been struck by the immense strides
made within the last generation by Greek archaeology, as compared with
the very small amount of progress made from the literary side--at
least if progress is to be judged by the attainment of any general
consensus of opinion. Experienced archaeologists can now very soon
determine whether the remains which they find are those of a village
or a palace, and whether they belong to (let us say) the classical
or the geometrical or the Mycenean period. Again, in the case of
sites long occupied they can easily detect the existence of different
strata--especially if a palace has been built on the site of an
earlier village, or if a village settlement has intervened between two
'palace-periods.' Is it really impossible to distinguish such strata
in the history of poetry, or is the absence of progress which we have
noted to be attributed to other causes--perhaps that the criticism has
been of too subjective a character?
Now it is almost universally agreed that the Homeric poems are
considerably older than any other form of Greek literature which has
come down to us. Some scholars indeed hold that the latest portions of
the Odyssey belong to the seventh century; but we have seen that the
evidence for this view is by no means satisfactory. Certainly by the
middle of the seventh century, and probably somewhat earlier, we meet
with totally different types of poetry. In the first place we find a
number of new metrical forms, elegiac, iambic and trochaic, not to
speak of the numerous varieties of lyric metre. In matter and in spirit
too the difference is just as marked as it is in form. The new poets
are primarily concerned with the affairs of their own day. Callinos and
Tyrtaios are inspired by national patriotism. Their fragments may be
compared with the poem on the battle of Brunanburh, though even this is
nearer to the heroic spirit. Archilochos again is almost entirely taken
up with his own experiences and passions. A good analogy for his case
is to be found in the Icelandic adventurer Egill Skallagrímsson. In all
respects then the poetry of this age is as far removed as possible from
the heroic type of poetry.
Yet traces of an intermediate or transitional stage are not altogether
wanting. From the fragments of the Hesiodic Catalogue and other works
which are attributed to the close of the eighth and the early part
of the seventh centuries it is clear that--apart from hymns--the old
hexameter metre was retained for a time in a class of poetry which
appears to have been largely genealogical in character. In matter
also, as well as in form, this class had certain elements in common
with Homeric poetry, since both were concerned with the far past. But
in spirit its affinities were rather with the poetry of the following
age; for its object seems clearly to have been the glorification of the
state.
These observations lead us to conclude that a sequence can be traced
in the history of poetry, as in that of art. It is at least a natural
hypothesis that the great development of original poetry in the age of
Callinos and Archilochos was connected in some way with those political
and social movements which so greatly affected the Greek world during
the eighth and seventh centuries--changing almost every kingdom into
a republic. Moreover the existence of the transitional (genealogical)
type of poetry which we have noted is altogether favourable to this
idea; for the form of government which took the place of kingship
was at first that of a strictly limited aristocracy. But have we any
ground for believing that heroic poetry was the poetry of the age of
kingship? How far is such an equation in accord with the chronological
data at our disposal? In Greece itself kingship generally seems to
have come to an end about the middle of the eighth century. In Aeolis
however, with which we are primarily concerned, the change was in
all probability somewhat later; for the Phrygian king Midas (Mita of
Muski), who perished in the Cimmerian invasion about the beginning of
the seventh century, is said to have married a daughter of Agamemnon,
king of Cyme. But few will deny that the great bulk of Homeric poetry
was in existence by this time. The equation therefore seems to be fully
justified. Survivals and imitations may occur in later times, as in the
case of art; but, broadly speaking, it appears that heroic poetry is
properly the poetry of the age of kingship.
We must not assume forthwith however that it was the only type of
poetry which existed during this age. Certain passages in Hesiod's
poems (Theog. 80 ff., W. and D. 38 f.) render it clear that kingship
in some form or other still existed when they were composed; yet they
differ very greatly from the Homeric type. Our next object therefore
must be to try to ascertain the true provenance of Homeric poetry.
Was it court poetry or popular poetry, or are we to trace its origin
to conditions which cannot well be brought under either of these
categories?
It cannot seriously be contended, I think, that the Homeric poems
are of popular origin. In the first place their length is scarcely
compatible with such a hypothesis[358]. Their metrical form also is
clearly the product of a long artistic development; it is inconceivable
that popular poetry could be capable of creating anything so elaborate.
Again they are by no means in the nature of biographical sketches (cf.
p. 95); in spite of their great length the action in both cases extends
over quite a brief period of time. Further, there is little or no
definite evidence--certainly none which can be called conclusive--for
that confusion of different stories which characterises popular poetry.
The heroes who figure in the Homeric poems are scarcely the most
famous representatives of their states. Most of them are little known
elsewhere. Popular poetry could hardly have failed to introduce into
the action such persons as Heracles, Theseus, Peirithoos, Minos, Iason
or Adrastos. Then again we may note the presence of nearly all those
features which distinguish the heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples
(cf. p. 82 f.). The characters brought before us in the Iliad are
almost invariably either princes or persons attached to the retinues of
princes, and themselves apparently of what we may call knightly rank.
The chief exception (Thersites) is described in a way which only proves
the rule. It is true that this principle is not so strictly observed
in the latter part of the Odyssey. Several persons of humble rank
are introduced here, though it is to be noted that the most prominent
of them (Eumaios, the swineherd) is said to be of princely birth. In
other respects however the Odyssey conforms to the rules of Teutonic
court poetry just as much as the Iliad. Thus it is fond of describing
in detail the movements of kings and queens in their palaces and the
conventions observed in the reception of strangers. Again, persons of
princely rank are seldom spoken of with disrespect in either poem.
Dialogues must of course be excepted, and also references (especially
in the Nekyia) to persons of the far past--precisely as in Teutonic
poetry. But in general there is a noteworthy absence of any display
of feeling against the opponents of the poet's heroes--as much in the
case of Penelope's suitors as in that of the Trojans. Perhaps the most
striking instance is the semi-apologetic account of Clytaimnestra's
conduct given by Nestor (Od. III 263-272), a passage which may be
compared with the story of Offa's wife in Beowulf. We may note also
the surprisingly lenient treatment of Paris in the Iliad. Indeed the
characters represented in the most unfavourable light are gods--a
phenomenon for which we have analogies in Old Norse poetry. Lastly,
we must observe the strict avoidance of coarseness and of things not
mentioned in polite society.
Before we proceed further it will be convenient to turn for a moment
to Hesiod's poems. For these also early Teutonic literature presents
a number of fairly close parallels. In particular the proverbial
part of the Works and Days has many analogies in gnomic poetry, both
English and Scandinavian. As an example we may cite the first and last
portions of Hávamál. Again the precepts on husbandry and the calendar
resemble several Anglo-Saxon works both in prose and verse. For the
Theogony the closest Teutonic parallel--and it is very close--is the
prose Gylfaginning; but earlier poetical works, such as Völuspá and
Hyndlulióð, run on somewhat similar lines. There is evidence too that
subjects of the same kind were once popular in England[359]. Lastly,
the verses (22 ff.) which relate how the poet received his inspiration
may be compared with the story of Caedmon.
Now if we compare the characteristics of Hesiodic and Homeric poetry
we cannot fail to notice that they present a very striking contrast in
several respects, even apart from the absence of a common theme. In the
first place Hesiod takes no pains to conceal his personality. Again,
his poems contain little in the way of detailed description, except
where the occupations of a farmer's life are discussed. Thirdly, they
show no tendency to avoid indelicate subjects. Lastly, they betray no
acquaintance with court life. Kings are occasionally mentioned, though
not by name, but all the references are to their public appearances, as
judges or mediators. We may notice too that though in the Theogony (v.
80 ff.) they are spoken of with respect, in the Works and Days (v. 38
f.) the title is coupled with an opprobrious epithet (δωροφάγους). No
one can fail to observe that in nearly all these respects[360] Hesiod
shows the characteristics which commonly distinguish popular poetry.
But we have to remember that in spite of all these differences Hesiod
uses the same metrical form and to a large extent the same style of
language as the Homeric poems. There can be little doubt that priority
lies with the latter; indeed Hesiod frequently betrays acquaintance
with Homeric poetry. But it must not be assumed that his themes were
new; they are far more primitive than anything of the heroic type. If
Hesiod was the founder of a new era in poetry we must conclude that his
innovation consisted in the application of the forms of heroic poetry
to purposes for which they had not previously been used. The heroic
hexameter is the only form of metre which can be traced back beyond the
seventh century, and we can hardly doubt that it is the oldest form of
cultivated Greek poetry. But less elaborate forms of verse--perhaps
rude precursors of the iambic and lyric metres--must also have been in
popular use for ages in ballads, songs and hymns. We may infer then
that what Hesiod did was to turn to popular use the form of poetry
which represented the highest standard of art in his day.
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.
* * * * *
We must now turn for a moment to the Cyclic poems. And here it is to be
remembered in the first place that our information is very defective,
if not actually misleading. Herodotus (II 117) doubted Homer's
authorship of the Cypria on the ground that it contained a statement
in direct contradiction with the Iliad, namely that Alexandros arrived
at Troy with Helen on the third day after leaving Sparta, whereas it
is stated in the Iliad (VI 290 ff.) that he wandered out of his course
(to Sidon) when he brought her. But the epitome of the Cypria which has
come down to us states expressly that Alexandros did go to Sidon. Hence
we can only conclude that its trustworthiness as an authority for the
contents of the poem is open to serious doubt.
Taking the evidence as it stands we can detect at once an important
difference between the Cypria and the Nostoi on the one hand and the
Iliad and the Odyssey on the other. In the two former poems the action
seems to have been spread over a considerable number of years, while
in the latter it was limited to a few days or weeks. Again, as far as
we can judge, the two former treated a much larger number of events,
in proportion to their length--events too which were not so closely
connected with one another. Indeed they seem to have been almost in
the nature of chronicles. These however are characteristics of popular
rather than court poetry.
The story of the Cypria, as we know it, bears a curious resemblance
to the Edda trilogy Reginsmál--Fáfnismál--Sigrdrífumál (cf. p. 13).
Both the Cyclic poem and the trilogy served as introductions to famous
stories. Both stories were essentially concerned with the adventures
and passions of human beings; but in both cases the introduction begins
with the gods, and the origin of the tragic events which follow is
traced ultimately to irresponsible, not to say mischievous, conduct
on the part of certain deities. There can be no doubt that the whole
theme of the Northern poems is a late addition to the story of Sigurðr,
and that the poems themselves were composed as an introduction to this
story. Is it not possible that the Cypria was of somewhat similar
origin? The latter part of the poem, if we are to trust the epitome,
contained some extraordinary features. The story of Odysseus' pretended
madness and how he was eventually compelled to join the expedition is
difficult to reconcile with the general tone of Homeric poetry. Again,
the army is represented as assembling twice at Aulis and twice starting
for Troy. The account of the first of these incidents agrees with what
is stated in the Iliad (II 303 ff.), while the second contains the
story of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, according to the version in which
she was rescued by Artemis. On the other hand it is worth bearing in
mind that the poem is said to have ended with a catalogue of the Trojan
allies, presumably the same list which we find in the Iliad (II 816
ff., or perhaps 840 ff.)--and this can hardly be regarded as a late
composition.
The chief characteristic of the Nostoi seems to have been absence of
unity. Beginning with the departure of the Achaeans from Troy, it
narrated the adventures which befell various heroes on their return.
These formed, as far as we can tell, a number of quite distinct
stories, unconnected with one another except at the beginning. If we
may judge from the number of books contained in the poem--five as
against eleven in the Cypria--these stories must have been very short,
and consequently it is perhaps questionable whether we are justified
in regarding the Nostoi as an epic at all, except in the same sense
in which that term is applied to Hesiodic poetry. Indeed it seems to
have had an affinity with the latter in more than one respect; for
the stories of the various heroes were probably not uninfluenced by
genealogical interests. In the same light we may perhaps regard the
fact that one scene is laid in an Ionic city (Colophon). All these
features suggest that the poem came into existence at a fairly late
period. If the Cypria was designed as an introduction to the story
of the siege of Troy there can be little doubt that the Nostoi was
composed as an epilogue to the same. On the other hand many scholars
hold that it has been used by the Odyssey. But it is at least
questionable whether the references in question do not come from the
sources of the poem rather than the work itself[362].
The other poems of the Trojan series--the Aithiopis, Little Iliad and
Iliu Persis--resembled the Cypria and the Nostoi in the fact that
they dealt with a considerable number of separate episodes[363]. But
the resemblance was perhaps only superficial; for these episodes were
apparently represented as following one another in regular sequence. If
we had only a fragmentary epitome of the Iliad we might gather from it
much the same impression. All these poems were on a small scale, eleven
books in all; but, unlike the Cypria and the Nostoi, the action covered
only a short interval of time. Several incidents which they related
are referred to or even told at length in the Odyssey; but we have not
sufficient information to enable us to determine whether the references
are taken from the poems themselves. The chief argument to the contrary
is that these poems seem to have contained certain 'post-Homeric'
features, notably the rite of purification from bloodshed, in the
Aithiopis, and the sacrifice of a virgin (Polyxene), in the Iliu
Persis. The former case is especially significant, because--in
striking contrast with the spirit of later Greek poetry--the ideas of
pollution and purification seem to be entirely ignored in the Iliad and
Odyssey[364].
These so-called post-Homeric features are of course really
characteristics of a more primitive religion, and it would be better to
describe them as 'non-Homeric' or 'non-heroic.' But the fact that such
practices are ignored in the Iliad and Odyssey, while later poets had
a special affection for them, renders it probable that their presence
in the Cyclic poems is due to popular influence. Are we then justified
in assigning these poems to Stage IV of our scheme? That is a question
which, considering the evidence at our disposal, I feel a good deal of
hesitation in answering. Certainly they cannot have differed from the
Iliad and Odyssey in anything like the same degree that the medieval
German poems or even the heroic poems of the Edda differ from Beowulf.
They may actually have incorporated a good deal of ancient matter. On
the whole the balance of probability seems to me to incline towards the
view that the Cyclic poems are derived ultimately from the same body of
early heroic court poetry upon which the Iliad and Odyssey themselves
are based; but that their composition took place in later times, when
the 'Homeric' standard was no longer preserved in its purity.
Whatever may be the case with the Cyclic poems there are other poetic
works which may be assigned to Stage IV without hesitation. For our
purpose it will perhaps be best to take an illustration from the drama;
for, though such works are only secondary authorities, they are on the
whole less open to objection than lost poems on which our information
may be misleading. A good example is furnished by Aeschylus' Oresteia,
a series of plays which deals with a subject treated at some length in
the Odyssey. The chief incidents are the murder of Agamemnon by his
wife Clytaimnestra, the vengeance taken upon her by her son Orestes,
the persecution of the matricide by the Erinyes, his purification
by Apollo, and his trial by Athene and the citizens of Athens. In
the Odyssey the first of these incidents, the murder, is ascribed
to Aigisthos, Clytaimnestra's paramour. As regards the second we
have nothing but a passing reference to Clytaimnestra's funeral. The
other incidents are not mentioned at all. Again, in Aeschylus' work
prominence is given to an attempt on Clytaimnestra's part to placate
the dead Agamemnon, to an invocation of him for vengeance by his
children, and to the instigation of the Erinyes by Clytaimnestra's
ghost. These features too are unknown in the Odyssey; indeed they are
directly opposed to all that we know of Homeric religion. Then again
we find frequent and detailed allusions to tragic events which had
occurred previously in the history of Agamemnon's family--especially
the 'banquet of Thyestes' and the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. On these
matters too both the Iliad and the Odyssey are completely silent. Yet
in the latter case this silence cannot be due to accident. Either the
poets were ignorant of the story, or they deliberately suppressed it.
Few modern readers can fail to appreciate the Oresteia as an almost
unrivalled masterpiece of poetic art, in spite of the fact that the
ideas with which it is permeated are largely strange and unreal to us.
But what would have been the effect if such a work had been recited at
one of those courts in which Homeric poetry was patronised in early
times? There can scarcely be any doubt, I think, that the recitation
would not have been tolerated. To such an audience the poet's religious
conceptions would have been intelligible enough, but only as products
of a degraded and baneful superstition, while his skilful presentation
of various painful incidents in the history of a royal house--the most
distinguished in Greece--would have appeared not merely an offence
against good manners but rather a wanton insult to the kingly class in
general.
The social conditions and the ethical standard of Aeschylus' time
differed no doubt very greatly from those of the Homeric age. This is a
subject with which we shall have to deal later. It should be observed
however that nearly all the special features which characterise
Aeschylus' treatment of this story can be paralleled from Scandinavian
works which we may assign to Stage IV. A very close analogy for the
'banquet of Thyestes' is furnished by the story of Guðrún, Atli and
their children; and it is to be remembered that, though Atli at least
was a historical character, this story cannot possibly have any
foundation in fact. The persecution of Orestes by the Erinyes may
be compared with Saxo's story (p. 246) of the curse inflicted upon
Haldanus[365], likewise as a result of the shedding of 'kindred blood.'
With the sacrifice of Iphigeneia we may compare that of Vikarr in
Gautreks Saga (cap. 7), which was also brought about by the prevalence
of contrary winds. Invocation of the dead is not uncommon in such
works. On the other hand it is extremely doubtful whether any of those
features would have been permissible in early heroic poetry. They do
not occur in the extant poems of Stage II.
There is sufficient evidence that most of the characteristic features
of Aeschylus' story were not invented by him, though as to his sources
our information is not very satisfactory. The lost Oresteia of
Stesichoros was doubtless one of his chief authorities, and there is
some reason for believing that the version given in this work differed
from the Homeric account quite as much as that of Aeschylus. Beyond
Stesichoros we may perhaps think of the Cyclic poems, especially the
Nostoi; but it is very doubtful if they would have furnished such a
very markedly divergent form of the story. Stesichoros himself is said
to have treated his authorities with great freedom. But some of the
non-Homeric features can hardly be due to deliberate alteration. We
may notice especially the differences in the personal relations of
Agamemnon's family. In the Iliad he is the son of Atreus; Stesichoros
and others call him son of Pleisthenes. In the Iliad he has three
daughters, Laodice, Chrysothemis and Iphianassa; Aeschylus gives him
two, Electra and Iphigeneia, the latter of whom seems to have figured
also in the Cypria[366]. There is also a good deal of discrepancy in
regard to the scene of the events. In the Iliad and Odyssey Agamemnon
belongs to Mycenae; in Aeschylus' account this place is forgotten
and the story transferred to Argos, while Pindar, apparently also
Stesichoros and Simonides[367], placed it at Amyclai (close to Sparta).
Now these are just the kind of corruptions and discrepancies which
characterise popular poetry everywhere. Taken together with the other
non-Homeric features discussed above they seem to me to afford ground
for suspecting that Stesichoros and his followers drew upon a popular
and perhaps Doric or Peloponnesian version of the story[368] which was
independent of Homeric poetry. Their work then would be similar in more
than one respect to that of those Norse poets who rehabilitated the
old story of Sigurðr and Guðrún after the (strophic) type of their own
national poetry.
* * * * *
The course of our discussion has led us to conclude that the Homeric
poems are products of court poetry or minstrelsy in direct continuation
of that type of minstrelsy which we considered at the beginning of the
chapter. As yet however we have expressed no definite opinion as to the
length of time involved in their development, although we have noticed
that the evidence commonly adduced in favour of a long interval between
the earliest and latest portions of the poems is highly unsatisfactory.
It must be admitted that beyond a certain point the evidence at
our disposal does not admit of anything more than an estimation of
probability.
We have seen that there is good reason for believing that the history
of heroic poetry in Aeolis and in England proceeded on similar lines
in several respects, and also that the chief monument of English
heroic poetry was probably composed within not much more than a
century after certain events which it records. Now in any comparison
between English and Greek heroic poetry we must of course leave out
of account the frequent Christian allusions which occur in the former
(cf. p. 47 ff.); for there is no reason whatever for supposing that
any change comparable with the introduction of Christianity came over
the Greek world during the times which saw the development of Homeric
poetry. Apart from this element anachronisms are not very numerous or
marked; but they do occur. Thus the road which leads to the Danish
king's dwelling is described as a Roman road (_straet_), paved with
stone (Beow. 320), while the members of the same king's court (_ib._
768) are termed 'inhabitants of a chester' (_ceasterbuendum_). Such
cases may be compared with the Homeric inconsistencies discussed in
the last chapter--e.g. perhaps the occasional use of iron for weapons.
It can hardly be maintained, I think, that the latter are of greater
significance than the anachronisms in English heroic poetry.
This absence of striking anachronisms decidedly favours the view that
the period involved in the development of Homeric poetry was not very
long. Against such a conclusion it may of course be urged that there is
a constantly recurring phrase (οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσι) which contrasts
the 'men of the present day,' i.e. the men of the poet's own time, with
the heroes of the siege of Troy, emphasizing the superior strength
of the latter. But it is quite unnecessary to suppose that a long
interval of time is intended here. The old Nestor uses almost the same
expression in Il. I 272 (τῶν οἳ νῦν βροτοί εἰσιν ἐπιχθόνιοι), when he
compares the men among whom he was then living with those he had known
in his youth. Again, in Od. VIII 122 f., Odysseus contrasts the 'men of
the present day' (ὅσσοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσιν ἐπὶ χθονὶ) with the 'men of
old' (ἀνδράσι προτέροισιν); but by the latter phrase he means persons
belonging to the generation next above his own (Heracles and Eurytos).
The same usage occurs elsewhere. Thus in Il. IX 524 Phoinix speaks of
the 'glories of those heroes that were of old' (τῶν πρόσθεν ἐπευθόμεθα
κλέα ἀνδρῶν ἡρώων); but the story which he proceeds to relate is of
Meleagros, the uncle of Diomedes. Indeed persons of more than two
generations back are seldom mentioned in the Homeric poems.
An expression very similar to the one last quoted is used by Hesiod
(Theog. 99 ff.) when he speaks of the minstrel as singing the "glories
of men of old and the blessed gods who hold Olympos[369]." Here of
course the reference is not to persons of the last generation, but to
the heroes of Homeric poetry. In the Works and Days, vv. 156 ff., 174
ff., the Heroic Age is distinguished with all possible clearness from
the period in which the poet himself lived. It is not to be overlooked
that antiquarian interest forms a prominent feature in all Hesiodic
poetry. Even in the Works and Days it is obvious enough, although
such topics have little in common with the main theme of the poem. In
the Catalogue we meet with such characters as Hellen and Doros, who
owe their existence to speculations in tribal origins. The poetry of
the following period seems to have been essentially of a genealogical
character.
For such antiquarian interest the Homeric poems furnish no evidence,
except perhaps in the Nekyia. Not only are the genealogies of the
heroes seldom carried back more than two generations, but--what is more
important--there is scarcely any reference to their descendants, beyond
the first generation. Again, Achilles is said to have been singing the
'glories of heroes' (κλέα ἀνδρῶν) when he received the embassy (Il.
IX 189); but it is not stated that these were heroes of former times.
The songs of Demodocos and Phemios deal with the adventures of the
Achaeans at Troy and on their return home. That this is no accident is
shown by Od. I 351 f., where Telemachos pleads in excuse for Phemios
that "men always prize that song the most which rings newest in their
ears." No sentiment could well be more foreign to the tone of Hesiodic
or post-Hesiodic poetry than this. If any poet of that school had
interested himself in contemporary history our knowledge of the eighth
century would not be the blank which unfortunately it is. Clearly the
only heroic poetry known to them was the κλέεα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων. That
means very much the same thing as Einhard's _ueterum regum actus et
bella_ or the _antiquorum actus regumque certamina_ sung by Bernlef
(cf. pp. 80, 87). At such a time if anyone was composing a heroic poem
it would probably have seemed natural enough to use the formulae with
which several of the Edda poems begin: "It was long ago," or "It was in
early times that," etc. On the other hand Telemachos' remark would be
perfectly appropriate in the earlier stages of Teutonic poetry. We have
seen (p. 85) that in Beowulf one of the Danish king's knights begins to
compose a poem on the hero's adventure within a few hours of the event.
Procopius' account of Hermegisklos and Radiger (p. 97 ff.) must also be
borne in mind, although this story may not have attained the form of an
epic poem.
The conclusion then to which the Teutonic evidence leads us is that at
all events the type of narrative was fixed very early. The growth of
the Homeric poems may or may not have taken longer than that of their
Teutonic counterparts. Records of the eighth century B.C. speak of
κλέεα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων; records of the eighth century A.D. speak of
_antiquorum actus_. But in neither case do the poems themselves give
expression to a consciousness of the antiquity of the events which they
relate.
FOOTNOTES:
[356] In Od. IV 17 ff. two acrobats give a performance while Menelaos'
minstrel is singing, and in VIII 261 ff. Demodocos' song on the love
of Ares and Aphrodite is both accompanied and followed by dancing.
More usually however the minstrel's song and music is the only form of
entertainment.
[357]
ἐκ γὰρ Μουσάων καὶ ἑκηβόλου Ἀπόλλωνος
ἄνδρες ἀοιδοὶ ἔασιν ἐπὶ χθόνα καὶ κιθαρισταί·
ἐκ δὲ Διὸς βασιλῆες· ὁ δ' ὄλβιος ὅντινα Μοῦσαι
φίλωνται· γλυκερή οἱ ἀπὸ στόματος ῥέει αὐδή.
[358] Cf. Breal, _Pour mieux connaître Homer_, p. 24: "Attribuer à la
poesie populaire une composition en vingt-quatre chants, quelle folie!"
But one must bear in mind the length sometimes attained by Bosnian
poems (cf. p. 101). I may remark here that this work--like many others
dealing with the Homeric poems--frequently uses arguments which would
not have been put forward if attention had been paid to the heroic
poetry of other European peoples.
[359] Cf. especially a letter from Daniel, bishop of Winchester, to
St Boniface, written about the year 720 (Jaffé, _Bibliotheca Rerum
Germanicarum_, III 71 ff.).
[360] The suppression of the poet's personality is not a mark of heroic
poetry as such, but of epic or narrative heroic poetry.
[361] Unfortunately there seems to be hardly any material which might
enable us to estimate the popularity of heroic names in Greece in
early times (cf. pp. 42 ff., 64 ff.). Note however may be taken of the
existence of a prince named Hector in Chios, perhaps shortly after the
time of Agamemnon of Cyme.
[362] Athenaeus (281 b, 395 d) mentions a poem called Κάθοδος Ἀτρειδῶν,
of which nothing seems to be known elsewhere. As it contained at least
three books it can hardly have formed part of the Nostoi.
[363] Cf. Aristotle, _Poet._, XXIII 4, where it is stated that the
Iliad and Odyssey provide material for only one or two tragedies each,
the Cypria for many and the Little Iliad for eight.
[364] The 'purification' of the house of Odysseus (Od. XXII 437 ff.) is
of an essentially different character: cf. Harrison, _Prolegomena to
the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 24 f.
[365] This incident may also be compared with a passage in the Iliad
(IX 453 ff.). Phoinix' speech (perhaps designedly) shows a nearer
approximation to this type of religion (cf. also v. 568 ff.) than any
other part of the Homeric poems.
[366] The version of the sacrifice given in the Cypria (cf. p. 235) is
probably to be regarded as later than the other, although it occurred
in what was doubtless a much earlier poem.
[367] Cf. Pindar, _Pyth._ XI 32; Stesichoros (Bergk), fragm. 39.
[368] The Spartans possessed a tomb of Agamemnon at Amyclai (cf.
Pausanias, III 19. 6). Indeed, from Herodotus, VII 159, it would seem
that they claimed him as one of their own kings as far back as the time
of Xerxes. It has been suggested that a similar version of the story
is implied in Od. IV 514 f.; but the inference is doubtful. Aigisthos
rules Mycenae (after Agamemnon's death in III 305.)
[369]
εἰ γάρ τις καὶ πένθος ἔχων νεοκηδέϊ θυμῷ
ἄζηται κραδίην ἀκαχήμενος, αὐτὰρ ἀοιδὸς
Μουσάων θεράπων κλέεα προτέρων ἀνθρώπων
ὑμνήσῃ μάκαράς τε θεοὺς οἱ Ὄλυμπον ἔχουσιν, κ.τ.λ.
NOTE VI. THE TROJAN CATALOGUE.
In the last chapter we have endeavoured to estimate in general terms
the position of the Homeric poems relatively to the poetry of the
Heroic Age itself on the one hand and to Hesiod and genealogical poetry
on the other. I have avoided entering into details in regard to the
relationship between the extant poems and the lost Cyclic poems because
I did not wish to load the discussion with matter which, owing to the
fragmentary nature of the evidence, must largely be of a hypothetical
character. At the same time I am inclined to think that the Trojan
Catalogue (Il. II 816 ff.) does contain some indications which may
permit the date of its composition to be determined with a fair amount
of probability.
According to Proclus' Chrestomathy[370] the Cypria contained
(apparently at the end) a κατάλογος τῶν τοῖς Τρωσὶ συμμαχησάντων,
and it is commonly believed[371] that this is the list which has
been incorporated in our text of the Iliad. Proclus' words, taken
literally, would seem to indicate that the list did not include the
Trojans themselves. The 'allies' proper begin perhaps at v. 840, and
consequently it has been held that vv. 816-839 are a later addition.
Considering the nature of the evidence, this view can scarcely be
regarded as beyond question. But there certainly are noticeable
differences between the first and second portions of the list, apart
from the fact that the former contains no national names except Τρῶες
and Δαρδάνιοι. The first part is much more dependent on the Iliad than
is the second. Thus all the personal names which occur in it are to
be found in other parts of the poem, while several passages (eight
verses[372] out of the twenty-four) have been borrowed practically
verbatim. On the other hand, out of the twenty-five persons mentioned
in the second part of the list eleven are not met with elsewhere in the
Iliad, while four of the others are not elsewhere associated with the
nations (Mysians, Phrygians and Meiones) to which they belong here.
Again, though several verses show acquaintance with other passages in
the Iliad, there is apparently no single verse which has been borrowed
entire. The most striking fact however is that in two cases we have
references to heroes who are said to have been slain by Achilles in
the river. Neither of these persons is mentioned in the account of the
river fight given in the Iliad. In explanation of this it has been
suggested that another scene of this kind occurred in the Aithiopis;
but we have no evidence to this effect, and it is surely at least as
probable that they are derived from a different version of the river
fight described in the Iliad.
In both parts of the list we meet with a considerable number of
geographical names--of cities, rivers and mountains--many of which
(five in the first part and twelve in the second) do not occur
elsewhere in the Iliad. The majority of the names mentioned belong to
the immediate neighbourhood of the coast, and it is a fact worth noting
that these almost all fall into three distinct groups--in Paphlagonia,
the Troad and Caria respectively. There is a great gap covering
apparently the whole of the Bithynian coast and another embracing the
coast of the Aegean from Troy itself to Mycale. In explanation of this
fact it has been suggested[373] that the names in the coast-districts
are derived from an early poem or poems on the voyage of the Argo. This
hypothesis might certainly account for the mention of the Paphlagonian
names in v. 852 ff. But they are the only names in the second part of
the list for which it gives any explanation; for the suggestion that
the references to the Carian localities in v. 868 f. are connected
in any way with the story of the Argo can hardly be taken seriously.
Hence, if we are to trust the hypothesis in any form, it is more
probable that v. 853 ff. are a subsequent addition to the list. But
even in the first part the evidence in its favour is of the most
slender description[374]. Of the thirteen place-names which occur
in this section eight are found elsewhere in the Iliad; of the rest
only two apparently are mentioned in the accounts of the voyage of
the Argo which have come down to us. What is more important however
is that these accounts do mention a considerable number of Bithynian
localities[375], both on the coast of the Sea of Marmara and on that
of the Black Sea, as well as several peoples who do not appear in
the Catalogue. We must conclude then that this hypothesis in no way
accounts for the peculiarities of the Catalogue.
The true explanation is not far to seek. It was well known to the
ancients that the Bithynians were an intrusive Thracian people who
had crossed over from Europe. Again, the Aegean coast, at all events
from the Gulf of Adramyttion southwards[376], was covered with Aeolic
and Ionic settlements. Greek tradition unanimously held that these
settlements were planted subsequently to the Trojan War, and we have
no reason for supposing that the author of the Catalogue thought
differently. At the same time we may infer from his silence that he did
not claim to know what peoples had occupied these regions previously.
On the other hand he did claim such knowledge of the previous
occupants not only of the Troad but also of the Carian coast.
This fact surely furnishes the means of dating the composition of the
Catalogue with a fair amount of probability. It is generally agreed
that the Ionic settlements were later than the Aeolic; but probably
no one will contend that the Greek occupation of Miletos and Mycale
began appreciably later than the end of the tenth century. It is not
necessary of course to suppose that these places were still in Carian
hands when the Catalogue was composed. But at the same time the memory
of their former possessors is not likely to have been perpetuated in
an incidental reference like this much more than a century after they
became Greek settlements. The more northern part of the list contains
at all events nothing incompatible with the view that it was drawn
up in the first half of the eighth century. The excavations in the
Troad have certainly brought to light the fact that that district was
overrun by barbarians. But there is nothing to show that this took
place at the time of the Bithynian invasion, whether the two movements
were connected in any way or not. The evidence on the whole seems to
indicate that the barbarian occupation occurred not very long before
the foundation of the Ionic colonies on the Hellespont. There is
nothing very remarkable in the fact that the places mentioned in the
Catalogue lie chiefly on the coast; for such places would naturally be
the most familiar to the Asiatic Greeks, who must have been a seafaring
people to some extent from the beginning.
Now in other parts of the Iliad we find mention of several peoples
which apparently occupied the districts left blank in the Catalogue.
Thus in X 429, XX 329 we hear of the Caucones, who seem to have
belonged to Bithynia[377]. In XXI 86 f., VI 396 f. (cf. II 691, etc.)
we meet with peoples called Leleges and Cilices, the positions of which
are quite definitely stated. The former are said to have dwelt in the
valley of the Satnioeis, in the south of the Troad, the latter somewhat
further to the east, about the Gulf of Adramyttion. Again, in Od. XI
519 ff. we hear of a certain Eurypylos the son of Telephos, chief of
the Ceteioi. Telephos and his son figured in the Cypria and the Little
Iliad; and Greek tradition placed their home (Teuthrania) in the region
between the Gulf of Adramyttion and the Hermos. The name Κήτειοι has
been connected with that of the Hittites (Kheta); but without going
into this question we may probably follow Strabo (XIII 1. 70) in
tracing a reminiscence of them in the name of a stream called Ceteios,
a tributary of the Caicos. The Catalogue contains no reference to any
of these peoples, presumably because their names were not familiar
to the author. In later times we hear no more of the Ceteioi, while
Cilices are found only in Cilicia. The Leleges indeed are mentioned
frequently and on both sides of the Aegean, but only as a people of the
past.
It is an easy and popular method of interpretation to discredit
evidence for which no obvious explanation is forthcoming; and following
this method many scholars have regarded the names under discussion as
phantoms. The point against which adverse criticism has chiefly been
directed is the location of the Cilices in the Gulf of Adramyttion.
It is to be remembered however that we have no evidence earlier than
the seventh century for the presence of a people called Cilices in
the land which ultimately bore their name. In the eighth century this
people apparently dwelt to the north of the Taurus. In earlier times
we hear of them, so far as I am aware, only in the 'Poem of Pentaur,'
a work which celebrates the battle fought at Kadesh early in the
thirteenth century, between Rameses II and the Hittites. It is there
stated that the "chief of Kheta had come, having gathered together all
countries from the ends of the sea to the land of Kheta, which came
entire[378]." In addition to a number of Syrian names which occur in
the accounts of earlier wars the poem contains a group of new names
of peoples, consisting of _Pidasa_, _Dardenui_, _Masa_, _Kalakisha_
and _Luka_, with two others[379]. The last two of these names are
almost universally identified with the Cilices and Lycians, and the
first is usually connected with the name Πήδασος or Πήδασα, while many
scholars accept the identification of the second and third with the
Dardanoi and Mysians respectively. If the names _Pidasa_ and Πήδασος
are connected we are brought to the Aegean, where we find both Pedasos
on the Satnioeis and Pedasa[380] in Caria. Evidence to the same effect
is furnished by the procession of ten warriors depicted on one of the
monuments[381]. Of these five are of the Hittite type and two Semitic;
but the other three are of Aegean physiognomy and wear different
varieties of that feather head-dress which is known in Crete from much
earlier times[382]. When we find that this earliest reference to the
Cilices associates them with a group of peoples[383], of whom some
clearly belong to the west of Asia Minor, and some quite probably to
the north-west corner of the peninsula, it must be admitted that we
have no valid ground for discrediting the evidence of the Iliad as to
their presence around the Gulf of Adramyttion.
On the other hand it must not be overlooked that later authorities
know nothing of Cilices in this region; neither do they mention Leleges
in the south of the Troad or Ceteioi anywhere. If these peoples had
survived the Aeolic invasion it is difficult to believe that they
could have perished subsequently without leaving some trace of their
existence in Greek tradition. The Pelasgoi of Larissa in the valley of
the Hermos[384] appear to have been remembered in tradition, although
their territories were occupied by the Aeolians--probably at quite an
early date. The presumption then is that the other peoples had already
been destroyed by Greek raids--as is stated in the Iliad--or else that
they had been expelled or absorbed by the surrounding nations before
the Greek colonies were fully established. In either case we shall have
to carry back the poetic traditions relating to them practically to the
beginning of the first millennium.
We have seen that it is difficult to date the composition of the Trojan
Catalogue--at all events the latter part of it--after about the middle
of the eighth century. I am not aware of any valid reason for denying
that the Cypria as a whole may have been composed about this time or
for supposing that the Catalogue ever existed independently. It is
in the preceding period--presumably between the eleventh and eighth
centuries--that we must place the composition of the Iliad, though
its form may not have been finally settled when the Cypria came into
existence. Any more definite conclusion is rendered difficult by the
unsatisfactory nature of our information regarding the Cypria. But
the general impression conveyed by the epitome is that an appreciable
portion of the poem was derived from incidental references in the
Iliad, and that as a whole it possessed to a considerable degree the
characteristics of popular poetry. If this impression is correct we
must conclude that heroic court-poetry was in its decadence when the
Cypria was composed; and consequently we shall do well to place the
flourishing period, which produced the great epics, at least a century
earlier.
FOOTNOTES:
[370] Cf. Kinkel, _Epicorum Graec. Fragmenta_, p. 20.
[371] See the Addenda.
[372] v. 822 f. from XII 99 f., vv. 831-4 from XI 329-332, v. 838 f.
from XII 96 f. The borrowing of vv. 831-4 can hardly be ascribed to the
same man who took Amphios (the son of Selagos) from V 612. Ignorance
of the contents of the poem such as we find here is very rare; its
occurrence therefore in what is probably a very late addition to the
text deserves to be noticed.
[373] Cf. Niese, _Der homerische Schiffskatalog_, p. 53 ff.
[374] The argument that Abydos and Sestos cannot have been connected
except in a περίπλους (cf. Niese, _op. cit._ p. 54) is one which will
appeal probably to no student of early Teutonic history.
[375] Cf. Apollon. Rhod. I 1164 ff., II 649 ff., 720 ff., 901 ff., etc.
[376] It is held that the Aeolic settlements in the south of the Troad
were established at quite a late period, probably in the seventh
century. But we are not justified in assuming that no such settlements
existed previously. It is highly probable that the whole of this
district was devastated by the barbarians whose remains have been found
at Troy (cf. p. 295, note).
[377] Cf. especially Strabo XII 3. 5.
[378] Cf. Breasted, _Ancient Records, Egypt_, III p. 138.
[379] One of these names has been variously read as _Maunna_ or
_Ariunna_ (_Arwena_) and identified with the Μῄονες and Ἴλιον of the
Iliad, as well as with Oroanda and other places. The other, _Keshkesh_,
seems to bear the same relationship to the cuneiform _Kasku_ which the
Eg. _Kalakisha_ (_Kelekesh_ in Breasted's orthography) bears to the
cuneiform _Hilakku_ (beside _Hilak_). If _-ku_ is a suffix _Kasku_ may
possibly be connected with Κᾶρες (which seems to represent an earlier
_Ka(s)-ar-_).
[380] Perhaps also called Pedasos (cf. Herod, V 121). According to
Strabo (XIII 1. 59) this place also belonged to the Leleges who, he
says, once possessed a considerable part of Caria and Pisidia.
[381] Reproduced in W. Max Müller's _Asien u. Europa_, p. 361.
[382] Cf. p. 190, note 2.
[383] There is no question here of a national migration on the part of
these peoples. They were mercenaries hired by the Hittite king, who
"left not silver nor gold in his land (but) he plundered it of all his
possessions and gave to every country, in order to bring them with him
to battle." (Cf. Breasted, _op. cit._, pp. 129, note, 138.)
[384] Cf. Strabo XIII 3. 3 f. I see no reason for doubting the
existence of traditions relating to the presence of Pelasgoi in this
region. The identification of Larissa Phriconis with the Larissa of the
Iliad (II 841, XVII 301) seems to be at least as likely as any of the
others which have been proposed.