MYTH IN THE HOMERIC POEMS.
It is commonly held that history, myth and fiction have all contributed
to the formation of the Greek heroic stories; but opinions differ
widely as to the relative importance to be attributed to the three
elements. Among modern scholars the general tendency has been to assign
the chief weight to myth. By many indeed the heroes of the Trojan War
are believed to be as mythical in origin as the gods themselves.
One conclusion may safely be drawn from the Northern evidence discussed
in the last chapter: we must definitely dismiss the argument that the
Homeric heroes cannot have been men of flesh and blood because they
are brought into contact with the gods. No one will be so hardy as to
suggest that King Haakon or his namesake, the famous earl of Lade,
were products of myth or poetic imagination. Yet Göndul is as much
responsible for the death of King Haakon as Athene is for that of
Hector. There is certainly this difference between the two cases, that
we have no historical evidence for the existence of the Homeric heroes.
But the fact that deities participate in their destruction does not in
itself prove that they are themselves products of myth or fiction.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when most of the characters
of the Greek Heroic Age were believed to owe their origin to
nature-myth--personifications of light, darkness and so forth. At the
present time however it is only in some few cases that this view is
generally maintained. Its chief stronghold is the case of Achilles; and
here we are invariably referred for proof to the story of Sigurðr. The
two characters have of course a good deal in common. Both are more
or less idealised types of youthful strength and valour, and both die
prematurely. But it would be pure folly to regard these features as
in themselves proofs of mythical origin. In order to prove this it is
necessary to point to features which can only be mythical, and to show
that such features formed an original element in the stories.
Now we have seen (p. 140 ff.) that the current explanation with
regard to Sigurðr is open to the most serious--in my opinion
fatal--objections. On the other hand there certainly was a tendency for
myth to grow up in later times round this hero. As an instance we may
take his invulnerability, a feature which is peculiar to the German
version of the story. Achilles possesses the same characteristic--but
not in the Iliad or Odyssey. It is as much unknown in the Homeric
account of Achilles as in the Norse account of Sigurðr. Indeed the only
essentially mythical feature which the poems themselves record in the
case of Achilles--and it is by no means peculiar to his case--is that
he is the son of a deity[401]. But divine descent was claimed also by
many Teutonic princes, though the heroes of our stories are usually
separated from their divine ancestors by two or three generations[402].
Whatever may be the explanation of this phenomenon it is doubtless to
be connected with the stories of conjugal relations between human and
divine beings which we find both in Greece and in northern Europe.
This is a subject to which we shall have to return in a later chapter.
Above all, however, we have to take account of the influence of
folk-tales[403] and popular beliefs, which, as we have seen from the
Teutonic evidence, may make itself felt even in the description of very
recent events.
The story of the abduction of Helen is another case for which many
scholars still claim a mythical origin. It is perfectly true that
stories of (e.g.) the abduction of the sun or the incontinence of the
moon[404] do occur, though examples of this type are by no means so
common or widespread as many writers have assumed[405]. But what is apt
to be overlooked is that these stories arise from a personification of
the sun or moon, and that it is in consequence of this personification
that the heavenly bodies are believed to be exposed to perils and
passions such as affect human beings. It is surely nothing less than an
inversion of the natural order of things to suppose that the numerous
class of folk-tales which deal with the abduction of a girl or wife
originated in the type--a comparatively rare type--in which this motif
is applied to the sun. There can be no reasonable doubt that the
prevalence of such folk-tales is due to the innumerable occurrences of
abduction in real life. But the theory we are discussing involves not
merely the personification of heavenly bodies and natural phenomena but
their complete anthropomorphisation[406]--a very doubtful process in
the best of cases--whereas the story which it seeks to explain bears no
trace even of derivation from a folk-tale. In other words we are asked
to assume a most complex and precarious hypothesis in order to account
for a story for which parallels are to be found very frequently in
almost all stages of human society.
Of course I do not mean to say that the story of Helen is entirely
devoid of mythical elements. On the contrary, it is a most instructive
example of the growth of myth, and as such it furnishes an interesting
parallel to the history of similar stories in the north of Europe. In
the Iliad Helen possesses no mythical characteristics, except that she
is the offspring of a divine father. In the Cypria she had apparently
also acquired a divine mother (Nemesis). By the seventh century we find
her figuring in quite a different story of abduction--a story which
seems to have been treated by Alcman and Stesichoros, as well as on the
'Chest of Cypselos.' This time she is carried off by Theseus, with the
help of Peirithoos, and rescued by her brothers, the Dioscoroi[407].
Somewhat later we find a new version of the story of her abduction by
Paris. Now it is said to be only her εἴδωλον which is carried off by
Paris; Helen herself is taken by Hermes to Egypt[408]. There seems
to be little reason for doubting that the εἴδωλον was a deliberate
invention of Stesichoros, though in other respects this version of the
story may well have been influenced by the Egyptian version, recorded
by Herodotus (II 112 ff.). The latter again comes in all probability
from Greek settlers in Egypt, who connected the narrative of Helen's
sojourn in Egypt, related in the Odyssey (IV 125 ff., 351 ff.), with
a cult which they found existing in that country. This version of the
story then should perhaps be regarded as a product of fiction rather
than myth. The other story however--that of Theseus, Peirithoos and the
Dioscoroi--is doubtless of popular origin. It is important to notice
that both these pairs of heroes are connected with other stories of
abduction[409]. Moreover in both cases these stories have certain
elements in common with that of Persephone. There can be little doubt
therefore that we have to deal with a folk-tale. The introduction
of Helen into the story may be due partly to her kinship with the
Dioscoroi and partly to the influence of the story of her abduction by
Paris.
* * * * *
At the present time it appears to be the more general opinion that the
Homeric heroes originated mainly not in personifications of natural
phenomena, but in tribal divinities or personified conceptions of
peoples ('hypostasierte Volksindividualitäten'). Now we have seen (p.
131 f.) that in Teutonic heroic poetry we occasionally meet with the
mythical eponymous ancestors of families, though such persons are
referred to the past and not introduced into the main action of the
stories. Similar characters are to be found in the Homeric poems.
Perhaps the best example occurs in a speech of Aineias (Il. XX 200
ff.), where the names Δάρδανος, Τρῶς, and Ἶλος are included in the
hero's genealogy. The Cadmos of Od. V 333 is probably to be regarded,
in some sense or other, as the eponymous ancestor of the Cadmeioi,
though he is not mentioned in connection with Thebes. Again, in Od.
XVII 207 we have a reference to eponymous heroes of places, Ithacos
and Neritos. They are perhaps creatures of the poet's own imagination,
i.e. fictitious rather than mythical beings; but it is probable that
they were modelled upon existing types. Other examples of both types
may be found elsewhere in the poems[410]. Yet it cannot be said that
they are common. In Greece, as in northern Europe, the true home of
eponymous ancestors (Hellen, Doros, Achaios, etc.[411]) is to be found
in post-heroic, or at least non-heroic, literature.
In recent years however several scholars have put forward the theory
that the characters who figure in the main action of the Iliad are
tribal heroes in disguise. For a simple example of this theory we may
refer to the interpretation put upon Il. V 43 ff., where the Cretan
leader Idomeneus is represented as slaying a man named Phaistos
(Φαῖστος). Now there was in Crete a well-known city called Phaistos
(Φαιστός). According to Prof. E. Bethe (_Neue Jahrbücher_, VII 669)
it cannot be disputed that the man Phaistos is the 'eponym' of the
city and that we have here the remains of an ancient Cretan heroic
lay. But the origin of the man is stated explicitly enough in the poem
(_l.c._): he is the son of Boros the Maeonian and had come from a place
called Tarne. Before we can assume that he was the 'eponym' of a Cretan
city we must surely ask how he came to be represented as a Maeonian
(Lydian). Is it inconceivable that a name identical with that of a city
should be borne by anyone except the eponymous hero of the city?
This is not the only case of the kind which has been brought forward.
In Il. V 706 we hear of an Aetolian named Trechos slain by Hector and
in Il. XX 455 of a Trojan named Dryops slain by Achilles. Here we are
said to have 'eponyms' of Trachis and the Dryopes. In England during
the centuries immediately following the Heroic Age we find mention in
historical documents of princes or ecclesiastics called Walh, Cumbra,
Seaxa, Dene, Fronca, etc. Are we to suppose that these persons are the
eponymous heroes of the Welsh or Cymry, the Saxons, Danes and Franks?
But national names of this type seem to have been just as frequently
used by the Greeks, at least in historical times. We may mention
Achaios of Eretria, Ion of Chios and Dorieus the brother of Leonidas.
Is there any reason for denying their use in earlier times[412]?
The evidence of these names has been brought forward in support of
a far-reaching theory--that the conflicts which we find described
in the Iliad are echoes of tribal struggles which once took place
in Greece, and that the warriors, Trojans as well as Greeks, are in
reality mythical heroes in whom the various contending tribes have
become personified. If this theory is sound it will be obvious that the
resemblance between Greek and Teutonic heroic poetry must be merely
superficial--that the two groups of poems spring from essentially
different sources. It will be well then to examine somewhat carefully
the evidence on which the theory is based.
The first argument in its favour is derived from a story quoted by
Plutarch (_Theseus_, cap. 34) from Istros, a writer of the third
century, to the effect that Alexandros (Paris) was overcome by Achilles
and Patroclos on the banks of the Spercheios. In confirmation of this
story it is pointed out that the warriors with whom Paris fights
in the Iliad mostly belong to Thessaly, while his sister Alexandra
(Cassandra) was worshipped by the Locrians. Another argument rests on
a story derived from the Little Iliad, that Andromache was brought
to Pharsalos after the fall of Troy. The inference that she belonged
originally to this region is supported by the proposed identification
of Thebe Hypoplacie, her home in the Iliad, with the Phthiotic Thebes,
to the east of Pharsalos. Yet a further argument relates to Hector.
It is noted that he was worshipped as a hero at Thebes in Boeotia,
and that most of the persons associated with him, either as friends
or foes, are connected with Boeotia, Thessaly and the intervening
districts. In Prof. Bethe's words "Hector's tracks lead from southern
Thessaly, through Phocis and Boeotia, to the Cadmean Thebes." "In other
words Hector, or rather the tribe which honoured Hector as their hero,
migrated by this road. More accurately, the tribe gradually, in how
many centuries none can tell, moved in a south-easterly direction,
driven by a pressure which was no doubt exerted by the Aeolic tribe
represented in the Epos by Achilles[413]."
Now it is manifest that the argument derived from Istros' story
can have validity only if it can be shown that there is reason for
believing it to be based on genuine native tradition, independent of
the Homeric poems. For everyone who has studied the history of Teutonic
heroic poetry knows that in the later forms of the stories the scene is
liable to be changed to entirely different countries. Thus the fight
of Heðinn and Högni is located in the Orkneys in the Norse version of
their story, while in Kûdrûn Hagen is made a king in Ireland. Again,
in the Vitae Duorum Offarum the whole story of Offa and his single
combat is transplanted to the English Mercia, the home of the hero's
descendants. Yet in the case of Istros' story the requisite evidence
seems to be altogether wanting. If the story really comes from local
tradition it may very well be due to an imperfect acquaintance with the
Homeric poems. But the context, which mentions Hector as well as Paris,
suggests rather that Istros was referring not to the story of the Iliad
at all but to an early adventure of the two brothers[414]--presumably
one of those accretions to the old heroic cycles, for which so many
parallels can be found in late Teutonic authorities like Thiðreks Saga
af Bern.
The argument relating to the Locrian cult of Alexandra (Cassandra)
need scarcely be considered at length; for, however ancient this cult
may have been, it was always connected with the sanctuary of Athene
at Troy[415]. The cult of Hector at Thebes likewise seems to have
been derived from the same quarter, perhaps in comparatively late
times[416]. Again, the identification of Andromache's home with Thebes
in Phthiotis is admittedly nothing more than a conjecture.
One argument still remains for consideration, namely that the persons
brought into contact with Hector come chiefly from the north-eastern
parts of Greece and those encountered by Paris chiefly from Thessaly.
Now it is to be observed that several of the persons whose names
figure in Prof. Bethe's lists (_op. cit._, p. 670 ff.) are not said
to come from Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. in the Iliad itself. That they
were derived from this quarter is merely an inference from the fact
that other persons belonging to Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. bear the same
names. It cannot for a moment be suspected that in V. 705, XV. 547 ff.
the poets themselves were thinking of Orestes the son of Agamemnon or
of Melanippos the famous Theban hero. But surely nothing can be more
absurd than the proposition that persons who bear the same name must
necessarily be identical in origin. In the Teutonic Heroic Age we know
from historical sources of five kings named Theodric, all of whom were
living within half a century of one another. Have we any reason for
supposing that the ancient Greeks were more careful to avoid the use of
names which had already been appropriated?[417]
Again, the lists given by Prof. Bethe contain merely a selection of
the warriors encountered by Paris and Hector. The former fights in
the Iliad not only with the Thessalian heroes Machaon, Eurypylos and
Menesthios, but also with Menelaos from Sparta, Diomedes from Argos and
Euchenor from Corinth. Hector's antagonists include, among others, Aias
from Salamis, Stichios from Athens, Periphetes from Mycenae, Lycophron
from Cythera and Amphimachos from Elis. On the other hand Melanippos is
merely one, and by no means the most conspicuous, of the same hero's
supporters. Considering the evidence as a whole therefore I fail to see
that this argument is worth any more than the others.
It appears then that the evidence adduced in favour of the theory which
we are discussing is open to serious objection at every point[418].
But, leaving questions of detail, we have yet to notice that the theory
as a whole consists of two main propositions. The first of these is
that the warriors of the Iliad are really 'tribal heroes,' i.e. in some
sense or other personifications of tribes. In other words the contests
described in the poem were originally conflicts of tribes and not of
individuals. The second proposition is that these conflicts must have
taken place between neighbouring tribes. It will be seen that this
proposition depends very largely upon the first. If the conflicts of
the Iliad really took place, as the poem states, between individual
warriors or bands of soldiers, there is no occasion for supposing that
the combatants were necessarily neighbours. As far back as the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries Egyptian monuments testify, as we have seen,
to enterprises far more distant than the expedition against Troy.
Now the first proposition is of course nothing new in itself. On the
contrary, Prof. Bethe's theory is an outgrowth from a view which has
been long and widely current--that the conflicts recorded in the Iliad
are a reflection of the Aeolic settlement of the Asiatic coast. His
purpose has been to show that only a comparatively small portion of the
story comes from this source[419], and that the bulk is derived from
reminiscences of earlier tribal struggles in Greece, which have become
embedded in the story of Troy. The two theories differ very greatly in
the explanations which they give of the origin of various incidents
and characters. But it is not to be overlooked that the principle of
interpretation is the same in both cases.
No one will deny that the personification of tribes and nationalities
is to be found in both the poetry and the prose literature of many
peoples. In certain passages of the Old Testament this principle
of interpretation has been recognised from ancient times. But the
authorities in which these passages occur cannot be described as
heroic poems. Again Greek literature itself also yields plenty of
obvious examples, such as the stories of Hellen and his sons and
Danaos, several of which can be traced back to quite early poems.
But these poems appear to have been of the Hesiodic, and not of the
Homeric school. If we turn to the Teutonic peoples, evidence for
such personification is abundant, and some of it belongs to our very
earliest records. But, except in genealogical references such as we
have dealt with above (p. 267), examples are not to be found in heroic
poetry. The idea that the characters who are brought before us in
the poems--let us say Beowulf or Sigurðr or Witege--are themselves
personifications of tribes is one which probably no scholar would
entertain.
Now in the Homeric poems, as we have them, just as much as in Teutonic
heroic poetry, the interest of the poets lies in the fortunes of
individual heroes, not in those of the communities to which they
belong. Even in those Teutonic stories which have the least claim to
be regarded as historical there is no reason for doubting that such
was the case from the very beginning. On the other hand the current
hypothesis with regard to the origin of the Greek heroic stories
postulates what can only be described as a complete revolution in the
interests of the poets and their audiences. This however is a postulate
which ought not to be accepted, unless decisive evidence is forthcoming
in its favour.
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?
But we have yet to consider a more important question than this. In
the Iliad itself only two of the leading heroes, namely Achilles and
the Locrian Aias, are represented as coming from the northern parts
of Greece. But the Locrians cannot be regarded as an Aeolic people.
Achilles then is the only leading hero whose Aeolic nationality
rests on any solid evidence, and it is, as we have seen, chiefly
owing to their association with him that the same nationality is
claimed by hypothesis for Agamemnon and the rest. But before we bring
our discussion to a close it will be well to ask whether Achilles'
nationality really is established beyond question by the evidence.
It has been mentioned above that 'the Pelasgian Argos' is said to be
the home of Achilles, though unfortunately neither ancient nor modern
scholars have been able to determine with certainty what is meant by
that name. Of the other places recorded in the same context (Il. II 681
ff.[423])--viz. Alos, Alope, Trechis, Phthia and Hellas--all except the
third are involved in somewhat similar obscurity. Phthia--whether it
be a city or a district--was generally located between Mt Othrys and
the Malian Gulf. Hellas was believed to be in the same neighbourhood,
if not actually identical with Phthia; some placed it on the north
side of Othrys, a short distance away. The names Ἄλος and Ἀλόπη were
borne in historical times by places in Locris, and also by other places
in Phthiotis, on the Pagasean Gulf and the Malian Gulf respectively.
Opinion was divided as to which of these were the places mentioned in
the Iliad. Trechis (Trachis) lay on the south of the Spercheios.
It must not be overlooked that, except the indefinite Hellas and
Phthia, all these places, including 'the Pelasgian Argos,' are
mentioned only in the Catalogue of Ships, a section of the poem which
is commonly regarded with very little respect. Indeed the same scholars
who lay so much stress upon the Pelasgian Argos as the home of Achilles
have no hesitation about rejecting the evidence of the Catalogue as
to the homes of Agamemnon, Menelaos, Nestor, Diomedes and others.
Yet the Thessalian section of the Catalogue is admittedly far more
difficult to understand than any other. It is scarcely credible that
the poet responsible for it can have been personally acquainted with
the places he was enumerating. Now in other parts of the poem Achilles
and his followers are associated with the Spercheios or Ellada; from
XVI 173 ff., XXIII 144 ff. it is quite clear that his home was supposed
to be in the immediate neighbourhood of that river. According to
IX 484 his vassal Phoinix rules over the Dolopes, a people who, at
least in historical times, inhabited the mountainous country to the
north-west[424]. These indications, it will be seen, agree perfectly
well with the only place in the Catalogue which can be identified with
certainty, namely Trechis. On the whole also they favour the view that
'Alope' is the Phthiotic Alope. Achilles' country then is the basin of
the Spercheios, together probably with the coast lands on the Malian
Gulf between the mountains of Oite and Othrys. It may have included the
northern slopes of the latter, in the territory of the Dolopes; but
neither the evidence of the Catalogue itself nor references in other
parts of the Iliad give us any warrant for supposing that it extended
into the plain of Larissa[425].
Now there is not a particle of evidence that an Aeolic dialect was
ever spoken either in the basin of the Spercheios or in the districts
bordering on the coasts of the Malian Gulf. A form (Μαχαειος) which may
be an Aeolic patronymic occurs in an inscription from Melitaia[426];
but the inscription in other respects is definitely non-Aeolic,
although Melitaia lies to the north of Othrys. A similar form
(Ευβιοτεια) occurs in an inscription found near Pteleon[427], which
is too short for us to determine its character; but Pteleon lies in
the extreme east of Phthiotis, outside the Malian Gulf, and according
to the Catalogue belonged to Protesilaos. The only inscription of
definitely Aeolic (Thessalian) character as yet found in Phthiotis
comes from near Eretria, just inside the boundary. This place is not
mentioned in the Catalogue, or elsewhere in the Iliad; but Strabo
(IX 5. 10) conjectured that it belonged to Achilles' territories. If
we are to follow the indications given by the Catalogue the question
would seem to lie between the territories of Protesilaos and those of
Eurypylos; there is nothing to show that Achilles' country was believed
to extend so far. It is most surprising therefore to find Prof.
Cauer[428] concluding from such evidence as this that "we are justified
in claiming the valley of the Spercheios also as an Aeolic district and
Achilles as a hero of Aeolic nationality."
For the language of Achilles' country itself we are by no means without
evidence. Fairly long inscriptions have been found at Hypate in the
valley of the Spercheios and at Lamia, to the north of the Malian
Gulf--to which may be added an inscription, apparently of the Oitaioi,
at Drymaia in Phocis. All these show the form of language usually known
as 'north-west Greek,' and the same is true of other inscriptions found
in the north and east of Phthiotis. Although they are all late, there
is no valid reason for doubting that this language is indigenous[429].
Only two inscriptions[430], so far as I know, contain references to
Aetolian magistrates. The dialect is almost identical not only with
that of the Aetolian inscriptions, but also with those of the Locrians
and Phocians, the former of which is well known from much earlier
times. Greek communities as a general rule were slow to change their
language, and the influence of the Aetolian League was scarcely of such
a character as to favour the permanent extension of its dialect[431].
If we are to trust all the evidence which we possess Othrys, and not
Oite, was the southern limit of the Aeolic (Thessalian) dialect. The
communities of Phthiotis were politically dependent upon Thessaly,
but they seem never to have been subjugated in the same way as
the Aeolic population north of the mountains[432]. They had their
own troops and sent a separate contingent to Xerxes' army. Indeed
Herodotus (VII 173, 196 ff.) clearly distinguishes between 'Thessaly'
and 'Achaia' (i.e. Phthiotis). Moreover it appears to have been the
general opinion among the Greeks themselves that this district was
the original home of the Achaeans of the Peloponnesos. Pausanias (VII
1. 6) traces the Peloponnesian Achaeans to Archandros and Architeles,
the sons of Achaios, who had come from Phthiotis[433]. Herodotus (II
98) was evidently familiar with some form of this story, though he
calls Archandros son of Phthios and grandson of Achaios. The supposed
connection therefore goes back at least to the fifth century. How far
these genealogies were constructed upon linguistic affinities is a
question which needs some discussion. We may remark in passing however
that the dialect of the Peloponnesian Achaia, so far as it is known to
us[434], shows but little difference from the dialects north of the
Gulf of Corinth. It is commonly included in the list of 'north-west
Greek' dialects.
In the meantime we may notice an argument which has sometimes been
brought forward in support of the hypothesis that Aeolic was once
spoken much further south. This is the presence of an Aeolic or
semi-Aeolic form of language in Boeotia. The ancients themselves
believed that the Boeotians were not indigenous. Thucydides (I 12)
states that they had been expelled by the Thessalians from 'Arne'
after the Trojan War; but this was not the only form of the story. On
the other hand many modern scholars have adopted the view that the
'north-western' dialects of Locris and Phocis were intrusive[435], and
that the non-Aeolic characteristics of the Boeotian dialect itself
were due to an extension of the same movement--in short that Aeolic
was the earliest form of Greek spoken throughout the whole region
from Thessaly down to the borders of Attica. For such a displacement
of population[436] no evidence is to be found either in history or
tradition. Moreover this hypothesis has opposed to it the evidence of
what may be called linguistic geography. The Ionic dialects of Euboea
and Attica have much more in common with the 'north-western' dialects
of Locris and Phocis than they have with Boeotian. The latter indeed
stands quite isolated in many respects among the dialects of this part
of Greece. It will be sufficient here to notice the close pronunciation
of _ē_ (e.g. in Gen. sg. μεινός) and the open pronunciation of _ŏ_
(e.g. in Acc. pl. τώς)--both of which are probably to be regarded
as Aeolic characteristics--the use of Aeolic patronymics in _-ios_
(e.g. Ἵππων Ἀθανοδώριος) and more especially the Aeolic tendency
to change labiovelar explosives into labials before _ē̆_, which we
find exemplified at both extremities of the Boeotian area (Βελφοί,
Πευματτός). The last peculiarity is doubtless one of the earliest
cases of dialectal variation which can be traced in the Greek language;
but it is impossible to date. All this evidence tends to show that
Aeolic was the intrusive element--in other words, to confirm the
tradition that Boeotia was at some time invaded by settlers from an
Aeolic-speaking district[437].
In recent years there has been a tendency to classify the Greek
dialects in two main groups--'East Greek' and 'West Greek.' In the
former are included Arcadian, Cypriot, Ionic (with Attic) and the
Aeolic dialects, i.e. Thessalian and Lesbian-Aeolic, together with the
Aeolic element in Boeotian. To the latter are referred the remaining
dialects, i.e. the Doric dialects and all the dialects of the mainland
of Greece except Arcadian, Attic, Thessalian and Boeotian, so far as
Boeotian can be regarded as Aeolic. It may be doubted whether this
classification is altogether satisfactory, since the affinities of
Aeolic with Ionic and Arcadian are by no means close; as much perhaps
might be said for a division into 'North Greek' (Aeolic) and 'South
Greek' (non-Aeolic). But there can be no doubt that the 'West Greek'
dialects, i.e. Doric and north-western Greek, except perhaps Elean, do
really form a homogeneous group. Indeed it can hardly be maintained
that the Doric dialects as a whole show any divergence from the other
members of the group[438], though there are marked differences between
one Doric dialect and another. It is this West Greek group which
specially requires our attention, for according to all the evidence we
possess it included the dialects of both the Phthiotic Achaeans and the
Peloponnesian Achaeans.
Now let us return to the genealogical problem. We have seen that
Herodotus was familiar with a story which traced the descent of the
Peloponnesian Achaeans from Phthios the son of Achaios. The same writer
elsewhere (I 56, etc.) draws a distinction between 'Hellenic' and
'Pelasgian' peoples. Among the former he includes the Dorians; among
the latter the Athenians (I 56, VIII 44), the Ionians (VII 94), the
Arcadians (I 146) and the Aeolians (VII 95). By Αἰολέες he means here
the inhabitants of the Asiatic Aeolis. But in view of other passages (I
57, VII 176) it can scarcely be doubted that he would have included the
earlier population of Thessaly in the same category.
Now Herodotus himself believed the Pelasgoi to have been a barbarous
nation. The peoples of whom he is speaking here were regarded by
him as 'Hellenized' Pelasgoi. Some modern writers think that he was
mistaken in this view, and that the Pelasgoi were a Greek people from
the beginning[439]. Some hold also that the term Πελασγοί in most of
these cases is due simply to the influence of genealogies[440]. It is
a serious objection to this latter view that the well-known genealogy
in which the descent of Ion, as well as Aiolos, is traced from Hellen,
goes back at least two or three centuries before the time of Herodotus.
But we are not primarily concerned here with Herodotus' opinions;
for it is clear from the expressions which he uses (e.g. VII 95: τὸ
πάλαι καλεόμενοι Πελασγοὶ, ὡς Ἑλλήνων λόγος) that the distinction
between Πελασγοί and Ἕλληνες was one which was generally recognised in
his time. Some of his contemporaries may have regarded the Pelasgoi
as Greeks, others as barbarians. What was generally agreed was that
the term Ἕλληνες was originally applied only to a portion of the
inhabitants of Greece. We may refer to Thucydides (I 3[441]): "The
different tribes, of which the Pelasgian was the most widely spread,
gave their own names to different districts. But when Hellen and his
sons became powerful in Phthiotis, their aid was invoked by other
cities, and those who were associated with them gradually began to be
called Hellenes, though a long time elapsed before the name prevailed
over the whole country. Of this Homer affords the best evidence;
for he, although he lived long after the Trojan War, nowhere uses
this name collectively, but confines it to the followers of Achilles
from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes." In a certain sense
therefore we may regard Πελασγοί as a term of negative value, i.e.
'non-Hellenic.'
Herodotus does not expressly describe any people as 'Hellenic,' in the
narrower sense, except the Dorians. But we are surely not justified
in concluding from this that he regarded the Dorians as the only true
Hellenes[442]. He is interested in pointing out that certain Greek
(Hellenic) peoples were believed to be of Pelasgian origin. Doubtless
he considered it unnecessary to say that those for whom no such origin
was claimed were really Hellenes, except in such a passage as I 56,
where a 'Hellenic' and a 'Pelasgian' people are specially contrasted
with each other. In general then the presumption is rather that a
people was believed to be truly Hellenic, unless we have a statement to
the contrary. In particular however it is incredible that the Achaeans
were regarded as Pelasgian, for it was in the Achaean Phthiotis--more
properly perhaps in 'Phthia'--that traditional belief located the
eponymous Hellen. Thucydides, as we have seen, observes that this
belief was confirmed by the evidence of the Homeric poems. The term
'Hellenic' belongs essentially to the followers of Achilles (οἵπερ καὶ
πρῶτοι Ἕλληνες ἦσαν).
It can hardly be contended either that the story of Hellen is derived
from the Homeric usage, or that the Homeric usage is derived from
the story of Hellen. Both alike are based on the common knowledge or
belief that the names Ἕλληνες and Ἑλλάς belonged originally to Phthia.
It is not difficult to see why names from such a district, obscure
and remote as it was, should come to be applied to the whole nation.
The valley of the Spercheios was regarded as the gate of Greece.
Certain peoples, such as the Boeotians and Eleans, may have come into
possession of their territories by maritime invasions. But there can
be little doubt that in prehistoric, as in historical times--we may
refer to the Persians and the Gauls--great invasions usually made
their way through the pass of Thermopylai. That is true probably not
only of the later invasions of the 'West Greek' peoples (the Achaeans,
Locrians, Dorians, etc.) but also of those much earlier movements by
which the first Greek populations--the ancestors of the Ionians and
Arcadians--were introduced into the peninsula. But if we are to trust
all the evidence at our disposal it was with the later movements that
the names Ἑλλάς[443] and Ἕλληνες[444] were originally connected.
The results of our discussion may now be summarised as follows: (i)
According to current hypotheses the language of the Achaeans of
Phthiotis was Aeolic, while that of the Peloponnesian Achaeans was
perhaps Arcadian; but in point of fact all the linguistic evidence
which we have from both districts (including the colonies of the
Peloponnesian Achaeans) is definitely West Greek. In all probability
the valley of the Spercheios was one of the first, if not actually the
very first, of the districts occupied by the West Greeks in the eastern
and southern parts of the peninsula. (ii) According to a belief current
in the fifth century certain Greek peoples were truly 'Hellenic,' while
others were of 'Pelasgian' origin. The former category coincided,
at least to a large extent, with the 'West Greek' linguistic
division, the latter with the 'East Greek' division, or--to speak
more accurately--with the northern, eastern and southern groups of
dialects. In certain cases, owing to the silence of our authorities, it
may be permissible to doubt whether a people was regarded as 'Hellenic'
or 'Pelasgian'; but no such doubt applies to the followers of Achilles,
'who were the original Hellenes.' It was in Phthia that much earlier
tradition located the eponymous Hellen; and from the same district
came Archandros and Architeles, the legendary progenitors of the
Peloponnesian Achaeans, several generations before the Trojan War. It
is clear then that the 'West Greek' language of the extant inscriptions
is in perfect agreement with the belief of the fifth century Greeks
that this community was essentially Hellenic. We may dismiss therefore
as totally without foundation the hypothesis that Achilles was an
Aeolic (or Pelasgian) hero[445].
Now let us drop hypotheses and consider briefly the evidence actually
furnished by the Iliad. The poem leaves us in no doubt as to who are
regarded as the principal persons in the Achaean army. In II 404 ff.
Agamemnon is represented as calling together "the elders, the chiefs of
the whole Achaean host" (γέροντας ἀριστῆας Παναχαιῶν). They are Nestor,
Idomeneus, Aias the son of Telamon and his Locrian namesake, Diomedes,
Odysseus and Menelaos. In another council (X 194 ff.) we find the same
party together with three additional persons, Thrasymedes, Meriones and
Meges. In the debates, which occur so frequently, the leading speakers
are almost always Agamemnon, Nestor, Diomedes, Odysseus and Menelaos.
In the battle scenes the aged Nestor naturally does not play an active
part. The other four heroes however, together with Idomeneus, Aias the
son of Telamon and (to a somewhat less extent) the Locrian Aias, are by
far the most conspicuous figures in the army. In response to Hector's
challenge, from which Menelaos has been forced to retire, all the other
six come forward, together with Meriones, Eurypylos and Thoas. There
can be no doubt then that the eight leading men are Agamemnon and his
brother, Nestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus. To
these we must certainly add Achilles, who is in retirement throughout
the greater part of the poem.
[Illustration: =MAP OF GREECE=
=illustrating the 'Catalogue of Ships'=
The numerals denote cities or territories belonging to the
chief leaders of the Achaeans.
1. possessions of Odysseus
2. " Nestor
3. " Menelaos
4. " Agamemnon
5. " Diomedes, etc.
6. " Aias son of Telamon
7. " Aias son of Oileus
8. " Achilles]
[Illustration: =MAP OF GREECE=
=showing the distribution of the dialects in historical times=
Aeolic (Thessalian and Boeotian) ▥
Ionic (with Attic) ▤
Arcadian ▨
West Greek dialects not shaded.]
Hypothesis after hypothesis has been tried in order to claim an Aeolic
or Ionic origin for most of these heroes. The plain fact is that all
except one[446] belong to communities which in the fifth century were
regarded as truly 'Hellenic'--or at all events to districts where
dialects of the West Greek type prevailed in historical times. The
leading Aeolic hero is Eurypylos; but he ranks only with Meriones, the
Cretan second-in-command, Thoas the Aetolian and Nestor's sons. The
other Aeolic and Ionic leaders are distinctly less prominent.
From the evidence at our disposal it seems to me that, if the poets
of the Iliad, or rather their predecessors, were interested in any
nationality at all, that nationality must have been West Greek or
'Hellenic.' Of the two chief leaders one belongs to Achaia Phthiotis,
the other to the Peloponnesian Achaeans; the Catalogue of Ships (Il.
II 569 ff.) assigns to him territories which in the main coincide
with the later Achaia, though they cover a somewhat larger area. We
have scarcely any evidence worth consideration that either Achaia
Phthiotis or the Peloponnesian Achaia was ever held by a different
nationality within the period embraced by history and tradition[447].
The territories of the other chief Peloponnesian leaders were occupied
in historical times by the Dorians. But it was the unanimous belief of
the ancient world that the Dorian period had been preceded by an age
of Achaean domination in the east, south and west of the peninsula.
Lastly, the Odyssey (XIX 175), in a passage which is commonly believed
to preserve a true ethnographical record, speaks of the presence
of Achaeans in Crete. Thus at least six[448] of the nine principal
leaders come from regions with an Achaean population. In view of this
fact is it any wonder that Ἀχαιοί is by far the commonest term applied
in the poems to the Greeks collectively[449]? This then must be the
nationality in which the poets were interested. But the Achaeans of
historical times, as we have seen, everywhere used a form of language
which is West Greek. Moreover, it is to the northern Achaeans that we
first find the name Ἕλληνες applied (Il. II 684). The facts noted seem
to indicate that the Achaeans were the dominant people of the West
Greeks--indeed, we may say, of the Greeks generally--during the Heroic
Age, a position in which they were eventually succeeded by the Dorians.
But the poems themselves are of Aeolic origin. It is this
fact--supported by speculations of writers of the Roman period, who
included under the term 'Aeolic' every dialect not obviously Doric,
Ionic or Attic[450]--which has led to the unfortunate equation
'Achaean' = 'Aeolic.' In reality the heroes and the poems belong to
two entirely different sections of the Greek nation. Shall we then set
up another hypothesis--that the original poems were Achaean? But then
we should only be repeating the old error of building hypothesis upon
hypothesis. For it is a hypothesis, and nothing more, that the original
poems were concerned with tribal or national interests; the poems which
have come down to us deal with the fortunes of individuals. Moreover
we should not thereby save the theory that the Iliad is a reflection
of the Greek settlement of the north-western coast of Asia Minor; for
that settlement was not Achaean but Aeolic. The truth is that the
initial hypothesis is entirely unjustified. We have no more reason for
supposing that the heroes must be Aeolic if the poems are Aeolic--or
that the poems must be Achaean if the heroes are Achaean--than we have
for assuming that the Anglo-Saxon poems were of Danish or Gothic origin
because Danes and Goths figure in them more prominently than persons
of English nationality. It is likely enough that poems once existed
dealing with Aeolic heroes, such as Iason, perhaps also Peirithoos and
others. But the reason for the prominence assigned to Achaean heroes,
at all events in the poems which have survived, is to be found not in
the national sympathies or interests of the poets, but in the fact that
during the Heroic Age the Achaeans were the dominant people in Greece.
FOOTNOTES:
[401] Achilles himself was worshipped as a deity in certain localities;
and the same is true of some other heroes. We may refer to the story of
St Ansgar, quoted above (p. 255 f.). With such cases as that of 'Zeus
Agamemnon' we shall have to deal later.
[402] According to Völsunga Saga, cap. 2, Sigmundr, the father of
Sigurðr, had a divine mother (cf. p. 114).
[403] Some resemblance to the case of Peleus and Thetis is shown
by a story in Hrólfs S. Kraka, cap. 15, where an elf-woman bears a
daughter to Helgi, the father of Hrólfr Kraki. Such incidents are not
uncommon in folk-tales. We may note especially those cases in which the
supernatural bride is a mermaid, perhaps representing the Swan-maiden
of earlier times. Thetis has a good deal in common with the latter
class of beings.
[404] Cf. Aeneas Sylvius, _Hist. de Eur._, cap. 26, and the first Daina
in Schleicher's _Handb. d. litau. Sprache_. Night and day or dawn are
also frequently personified--the last especially where, as in Greece,
the sun is regarded as a male. But none of these lend themselves so
readily as the sun and moon to the development of mythical stories.
The personification of light, darkness, etc. in the abstract seems to
belong to a much more advanced stage of thought.
[405] Eclipse-myths (usually of a simple character) are widespread and
fairly common. A probable example is to be found in Gylfaginning, cap.
12 (cf. also Tylor, _Primitive Culture_⁴, I p. 328 ff.). But a good
deal of scepticism is justifiable in regard to the interpretation of
stories which are supposed to have originated in myths of sunrise and
sunset. This remark applies even to those Polynesian and Red Indian
stories which are commonly regarded as among the best examples of their
class.
[406] The personification of the sun and the dawn in the Homeric
poems is very similar to what we find in the north of Europe, e.g. in
Gylfaginning, cap. 10 f., and the first four Dainos in Schleicher's
_Handbuch_. The most important difference is that the Dawn-goddess,
like other deities, has sexual relations with mortals (see the
Addenda). But her true character is not for a moment forgotten.
[407] There is probably an allusion to this story in Il. III 144,
although a different explanation is quoted by Plutarch (_Theseus_,
cap. 34) from Istros. But the verse in question was condemned by some
ancient, as well as modern, scholars. It is 'inorganic' (cf. Od. II
331) and due in all probability to the same process as Il. II 831 ff.
(cf p. 244, note).
[408] This list is by no means exhaustive. We may mention also the
story of Helen and Achilles in the 'White Isle' (cf. Pausanias III
19. 11) and that of Ariston's wife, related by Herodotus (VI 61). The
Rhodian story (cf. Paus. III 19. 10) is obviously due in part to the
influence of the Homeric poems; but it is at least questionable whether
this Ἑλένη Δενδρῖτις was originally identical with the other Helen.
[409] Attention should be paid not only to the case of the Leucippides
but also to the story of Phormion (Paus. III 16. 3).
[410] In Il. II 828 ff. (if the name Ἄδρηστος is taken from VI 37
ff. or XVI 694) we have apparently the case of an already existing
character being turned to account as an eponymous hero.
[411] Αἰολίδης occurs occasionally as a patronymic for individuals. The
'keeper of the winds' seems to have no connection with these characters.
[412] In the Homeric poems it is in the case of minor characters
among the Trojans and their allies that names of this type are most
common. In this case the use of such names may be accounted for with
considerable probability under the head of fiction (cf. p. 300, note).
[413] Murray, _Rise of the Greek Epic_, p. 197 (from Bethe, _N.
Jahrb._, VII 672).
[414] Cf. Crusius, _S.-B. d. k. bayer. Akad._, 1905, p. 774 f.
[415] Cf. Brückner, _Troja und Ilion_, p. 557 ff.
[416] Cf. Crusius, _op. cit._, p. 761 ff.
[417] As a matter of fact the name Melanippos is borne by three Trojans
and one Achaean in the Iliad. Nothing is stated regarding the home of
the Achaean. The name Orestes is borne by one Trojan and one Achaean,
besides the son of Agamemnon.
[418] I have dealt with only one of the groups of names treated by
Prof. Bethe; but it is the one which he has discussed most fully. A
second (Laconian) group is treated by him on p. 672 f. On this it
will be sufficient here to refer to Crusius, _op. cit._, p. 771 ff.,
where it is pointed out that the chief argument rests apparently on a
mistranslation.
[419] Cf. _Neue Jahrb._, VII 662-9; XIII 2 ff.
[420] _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_², p. 223 ff.
[421] Cf. Crusius, _S. B. der k. bayer. Akad._, 1905, p. 755 ff.
[422] It must be clearly understood that I am using the term 'Aeolic'
in the modern (linguistic) sense. I am under the impression that Prof.
Cauer uses the term in the same sense. The only difference, so far as
I can see, between his terminology and mine is that--in accordance,
I think, with general usage--I would include Boeotian as well as
Thessalian and Lesbian-Aeolic in this category. Some ancient writers of
course use the terms Αἰολεῖς and Αἰολίς in a totally different sense.
Thus Thucydides (III 102) applies the name Αἰολίς to the district
about Pleuron and Calydon, and again (IV 42) he speaks of the ancient
inhabitants of Corinth as Αἰολῆς. There may be some difference of
opinion as to whether the use of these names in such cases is due to
the influence of genealogies--in the former case through Aethlios and
Endymion, in the latter through Sisyphos--or whether the genealogies
themselves are due to a current use of the names Αἰολεῖς, Αἰολίς, etc.
The form Αἰολίδης in Il. VI 154, Od. XI 237 rather suggests that these
names may have belonged to a family (or possibly a clan) before they
came to be applied to a people; but into this question we need not
enter. The term 'Aeolic' (in its linguistic sense) belongs properly to
the Asiatic Aeolis, and this name itself is derived in all probability
from the Thessalian Aeolis (cf. Herod. VII 176), the fatherland of the
Asiatic Aeolians. There may possibly have been some connection between
the reigning families of the Thessalian Aeolis and those at Calydon,
Corinth and elsewhere which claimed descent from Aiolos; but there is
not the slightest evidence that an Aeolic dialect (in the modern sense)
was ever spoken at either Calydon or Corinth. It may be added that
nothing but confusion of thought can arise from introducing into this
discussion the terminology of writers of the Roman age (cf. especially
Strabo VIII 1. 2), who apply the name 'Aeolic' to every dialect which
is not Attic, Ionic or Doric.
[423]
νῦν αὖ τοὺς, ὅσσοι τὸ Πελασγικὸν Ἄργος ἔναιον,
οἵ τ' Ἄλον οἵ τ' Ἀλόπην οἵ τε Τρηχῖν' ἐνέμοντο,
οἵ τ' εἶχον Φθίην ἠδ' Ἑλλάδα καλλιγύναικα, κ.τ.λ.
In v. 681 Zenodotos read:
οἵ δ' Ἄργος τ' εἶχον τὸ Πελασγικὸν, οὖθαρ ἀρούρης.
[424] This passage seems to indicate that the poet included the basin
of the Spercheios in Phthia.
[425] So far as I can see, the identification of 'the Pelasgian Argos'
with the plain of Larissa rests merely on a conjecture, of the truth of
which even Strabo himself (IX 5. 5) was not confident. It may very well
have been suggested by the name (Pelasgiotis) borne by this district in
later times. The oracle quoted by Prof. Meyer (_Forsch._, p. 30, note
1) proves nothing, and there is no evidence that the name was used in
historical times. On the other hand the fact that the citadel of the
Peloponnesian Argos was called Λάρισα (cf. Pausanias II 24. 1) does
suggest a connection between this name and Ἄργος. But if so, it is more
natural to think of Larissa Cremaste, which according to Strabo (IX
5. 13, 19) was also called Pelasgia. This place is much nearer to the
Spercheios than the northern Larissa, and in spite of Strabo (IX 5. 14)
may quite possibly have been included within the same territory.
[426] Cauer, _Delectus_, No. 388.
[427] _ib._, No. 390.
[428] _Grundfragen der Homerkritik_², p. 214.
[429] By this of course I do not mean that the inscriptions give an
absolutely faithful reproduction of the local pronunciation, any
more than do those of the Aetolians. From the fourth century onwards
'phonetic spelling' appears to have been superseded in most parts of
Greece. No earlier inscriptions, representing the Achaean dialect
in its purity, have been found as yet. From Thetonion however, near
Cierion in Thessaliotis, about twenty miles north of the border, we
have an inscription of the fifth century (_C. I. G._, XII ii 257)
in a curious mixed dialect, which combines north-western Greek and
Thessalian (Aeolic) characteristics in the proportion of about 7:3 (or
4). The evidence of this inscription seems to me to dispose definitely
of the hypothesis that the introduction of north-western Greek into
this region was due to the influence of the Aetolian League. Even the
dialect of Pharsalos is not quite pure Thessalian.
[430] Cauer, _Delectus_², Nos. 239, 386. The former is included by
Prof. Cauer, no doubt rightly, among the Aetolian inscriptions.
[431] The extension of the Dat. pl. ending -οις to consonant-stems etc.
has often been quoted as a mark of Aetolian influence. But in reality
it is common to all the dialects of western Greece. The earliest
examples apparently occur in Elean and Locrian inscriptions.
[432] According to the generally accepted view, which there seems to
be no reason for doubting, the language of the Thessalian (Aeolic or
'North-Thessalian') inscriptions belonged originally to the indigenous
population. The name 'Thessalian' however, properly speaking, belonged
to the invaders, regarding whose language we have no information.
[433] Strabo (VIII 5. 5) likewise connects the Peloponnesian Achaeans
with Phthiotis; but he attributes their settlement in the Peloponnesos
to an invasion by Pelops. In this passage (as in many others) it is
greatly to be questioned whether Strabo (or the authority whom he
followed) was recording genuine tradition--whether he was not rather
endeavouring to provide an explanation of the traditions.
[434] The inscriptions are late; but their evidence as to the
general character of the dialect is confirmed by some short but
early inscriptions from the Achaean settlements in Italy. It is
assumed by many scholars that Arcadian was the original language of
the Peloponnesian Achaeans; but I am not aware that any evidence
worth consideration has been adduced in support of this view. No
ancient authorities, so far as I know, connect the Arcadians with the
Achaeans, nor do the Arcadians themselves appear to have claimed such a
connection.
[435] This theory is of course quite distinct from the theory which
traces the language of the Phthiotic inscriptions to the influence of
the Aetolian League. The two are scarcely reconcilable if it be held
that the Locrians and Phocians came from the north-west; for in that
case their route must have lain through the valley of the Spercheios,
a district which would not readily be neglected by peoples seeking new
territories.
[436] I.e. in times subsequent to the Heroic Age. I do not mean
of course to suggest that the north-west Greek dialects belonged
originally to these districts; but I see no reason for supposing
that the previous language was Aeolic. The Ainianes may have moved
southwards later. But the language of their inscriptions (at Hypate)
is indistinguishable from that of the surrounding peoples. It is to be
remembered also that, according to the common tradition, the Dorians
themselves had come from a district within this area.
[437] It may be added that the fertile plains of Boeotia are more
likely to have attracted invaders than the mountainous lands to the
north-west.
[438] Cf. Meister, _Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss. Abhandl._ 1906, Nr. 3,
summarised p. 96 ff., where it is pointed out that the characteristics
commonly described as Dorian belong in reality also to Achaean and
that in general they are rather to be ascribed to the latter. At the
same time it is to be noted that some of the characteristics here
claimed as specifically Dorian are shared also by Cypriot, a fact
which rather suggests that they may be indigenous to the south-east
of the Peloponnesos. If the Dorians came from the same quarter as the
Achaeans--and not very many generations later--it is intelligible
enough that the two groups of dialects should be difficult to
distinguish, even apart from the fact that an Achaean stratum--however
insignificant numerically--underlies the Dorian practically everywhere.
[439] Cf. especially Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II p. 55 f.,
_Forsch. zur alten Geschichte_, I p. 112 ff.; Ridgeway, _Early Age of
Greece_, p. 659 ff., etc.; Kretschmer, _Glotta_, I 17 ff. Prof. Meyer
has subsequently abandoned this view (_Gesch. d. Alt._², I p. 687).
[440] Cf. Meyer, _Forsch._ I (_passim_). The genealogical explanation
seems to me to be pressed too far here. The case of the Arcadians is
the one in which it is most probable, since apart from genealogies
there is no real evidence that this people was connected with the
Pelasgoi in any way. Yet even here the cause assigned (_ib._, p.
53 ff.) is scarcely adequate. One might rather suspect a confusion
or identification of the names Λυκάων and Λυκαῖος; but I have no
inclination to propound a theory on the subject.
[441] Quoted from Jowett's translation.
[442] Cf. Meyer, _Forsch._, I p. 115; yet in another passage (_ib._,
p. 111 note) considerations are pointed out which can hardly have been
unfamiliar to Herodotus.
[443] It is to be remembered that the name ἡ μεγάλη Ἑλλάς appears to
have come from the Achaean colonies in Italy.
[444] It is worth noting that stems in _-ān-_, as names of peoples,
seem to have been specially characteristic of north-western Greek; e.g.
Αἰνιᾶνες, Ἀθαμᾶνες, Εὐρυτᾶνες, Κεφαλλᾶνες, Ἀκαρνᾶνες.
[445] It is scarcely necessary to notice the subsidiary arguments which
have been adduced in favour of the hypothesis--e.g. that Achilles had
been instructed by the Centaur Cheiron and that his spear had come
from Pelion. They are sufficiently accounted for by the fact that the
poems are of Aeolic origin. The suggestion that Peleus himself is the
eponymus of Pelion belongs to a class which has been sufficiently
discussed above (p. 267 ff.).
[446] The exceptional case is that of Aias the son of Telamon. But we
have no information relating to Salamis before its conquest by the
Athenians in the sixth century. It may have been under Achaean rule in
early times.
[447] In the case of the Peloponnesian Achaia it is conceivable that
a genuine tradition of a conquest of earlier (Ionic) inhabitants may
be preserved in Herod. I 145. But the story that this conquest was
connected with the Dorian invasion can hardly be due to anything but
'combination'; and traces of such a process can be distinguished
plainly enough in Herodotus' account. The important fact is that the
author of the Catalogue of Ships evidently knew nothing of the story.
[448] We may probably add Odysseus. In the Odyssey the hero's subjects
are regularly described as Ἀχαιοί. They are not called Ἀργεῖοι or
Δαναοί, although the three names are used interchangeably as collective
terms for the Greek army before Troy. Regarding the national affinities
of the inhabitants of the Ionian Isles in later times we have little
information; but the language was clearly of the 'north-west Greek'
type. Indeed Aias the son of Oileus is the only one of the nine heroes
in whose case Achaean nationality is distinctly improbable.
[449] The figures for the Iliad are: Ἀχαιοί 605, Ἀργεῖοι 176, Δαναοί
146; cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen_², p. 220.
[450] Cf. especially Strabo, VIII 1. 2.