SOCIETY IN THE HEROIC AGE.
The evidence of the German poems for the social and political
conditions of the Heroic Age cannot be regarded as trustworthy owing to
the lateness of the period in which they were composed. In principle
the same is true also of the Norse poems. These reflect the conditions
of the Viking Age rather than those of the Heroic Age, though, as
we have already noted, the difference here is less marked. On the
other hand, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon poems and the works of
contemporary Roman historians, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, Jordanes
and Procopius, we have valuable evidence from the early Teutonic codes
of law. Some of these, such as the Lex Salica and the Lex Burgundionum,
date from the first half of the sixth century or earlier, i.e. from
the Heroic Age itself, while a number of others--in particular we may
note the earliest English laws--belong to the following two centuries
and show probably little deviation from the custom of the Heroic Age.
All the codes of course contain certain Roman or Christian elements;
but this influence in some cases goes back to the fifth century or even
further.
The chief forces which governed the social system of that age were
the bonds of kinship and allegiance. The influence of the former
extended not merely, as with us, to rights of succession and duties
of guardianship over children and women. It was also the power by
which the security of the property and person of each member of the
community was guaranteed. If a man received injury or insult, his
kindred were bound to assist him to obtain redress. If he were slain
they had to exact vengeance or compensation from the slayer. On the
other hand not only the slayer himself but every member of his kindred
became liable to vengeance, and each had to pay his quota towards the
compensation (wergeld), just as it was divided among the kindred of the
slain--the proportion varying in both cases according to the degree of
relationship. In case of bloodshed a certain sum had also to be paid
to the king, even in the earliest times of which we have record; but
this sum seldom exceeded half the wergeld, and as a rule amounted to
considerably less.
The character and size of the kindred appear to have varied in
different nations. Some laws speak of claims to succession as remote
as the seventh degree, while the rights and duties connected with the
payment and receipt of wergelds seem generally to have extended as far
as third cousins, i.e. the descendants of great-great-grandparents.
Again, we hear sometimes of royal or noble families which bore a
common name derived from some ancestor, real or mythical, from whom
their power or prerogatives were believed to be inherited. Such were
the Oescingas, the Wuffingas and the Icelingas, the royal families
of Kent, East Anglia and Mercia respectively; so also the Scyldungas
(Skiöldungar) among the Danes, the Merovingi among the Franks,
and the Agilolfinga and other noble families among the Bavarians.
Persons belonging to these families had probably--in some cases
certainly--special wergelds; and the throne or principality seems to
have been regarded as in some sense family property. Some writers
believe that kindreds in general were permanent organisations of this
kind, and that originally they held land, and possibly other property
also, in common. But this view goes a good deal beyond what the facts
warrant, at all events for the period with which we are dealing.
It is clear that at this time kinship on both sides was recognised
everywhere; maternal relatives shared in the payment and receipt of
wergelds with those on the father's side, though not always in the
same proportion. Moreover the idea that the inclusion of the maternal
relatives was due to an innovation cannot be maintained. Thus, in
spite of the fact that the Frankish kings claimed the throne by direct
descent in the male line from Merovechus, there are clear indications
that Frankish law in its earliest form gave priority to the mother's
side. No doubt on the whole the agnatic system of relationship had
become predominant almost everywhere in the Heroic Age; but sufficient
traces of the opposite system remain to render it probable that a
change had taken place not so very far back[513].
Any such change of course involves--or rather perhaps implies--a
weakening in the force of the bonds of kinship; and of this we have
very clear evidence in the Heroic Age. Now it has often been pointed
out that early Teutonic custom seems to have made no provision for the
case of homicide within the kindred. In such a case the persons on whom
vengeance devolved would be identical, in part at least, with those
against whom it would be directed--and so also with the compensation.
It is generally held that homicide of this kind was extremely rare and
that, when it did occur, the slayer was outlawed. That would no doubt
be in accordance with primitive custom. Indeed in a state of society
based on blood-relationship the life of a kinsman must be sacred above
all else. Further, it is clear enough that the shedding of kindred
blood was regarded with abhorrence in the Heroic Age. Thus Procopius
(_Goth._ II 14), describing the euthanasia practised by the Heruli,
states that when the dying man has been laid upon the top of the pyre,
one of his countrymen goes up with a dagger and stabs him; but he adds
explicitly that this man must not be related to his victim[514]. Again,
to take another point of view, perhaps the saddest passage in Beowulf
is that which relates how Herebald was accidentally killed by his
brother Haethcyn. But the aspect of the case which first strikes the
poet is not one which would appeal to a man of modern times. "That was
a slaughter without compensation," he says (v. 2441 ff.), "the prince
had to lose his life unavenged."
Yet, in spite of all this, instances of the slaying of kinsmen seem
to have been by no means uncommon in the Heroic Age. In Beowulf the
spokesman of the Danish kings, Unferth, is said to have killed his
brothers, and though the fact was a reproach to him, it apparently did
not prevent him from holding an important office at court. In the same
poem we hear of dissensions within the Swedish royal family, which
ended in death for both Onela and Eanmund. According to the legends
preserved in Ynglingatal this family had had a very bad record for such
quarrels in the past. Among the Goths we have the case of Eormenric,
who put his nephews Embrica and Fritla to death. And it is by no means
only in poetry or tradition that we meet with such cases; historians
also furnish numerous examples. Thus according to Gregory of Tours (II
28) the Burgundian king Hilperic was killed by his brother Gundobad,
while Sigismund, son of the latter, had his own son, Sigiric, put
to death (III 5). The Thuringian king Irminfrith slew his brother
Berhthari (III 4); the Frankish king Sigiberht was murdered by the
orders of his son Hlothric (II 40). Clovis is said to have put to death
a number of his relatives, while his sons and grandsons were repeatedly
involved in deadly strife[515].
In view of such evidence we must conclude that the primitive sanctity
of the family was giving way in the Heroic Age. For the change of
feeling which was taking place one passage in Beowulf is particularly
instructive. In the struggle between Onela and Eanmund the latter was
slain by one of the king's knights named Weohstan. He stripped the dead
man of his arms and brought them to Onela who presented them to him and
"said nothing about that deed of guilt although it was his brother's
son whom he (Weohstan) had laid low[516]." To the modern reader the
poet's reflection seems strange; for Onela had been relieved of a
dangerous foe, who was trying to deprive him of the kingdom. Yet there
can be no doubt that according to primitive tribal custom he ought to
have taken vengeance upon his knight.
It is clear then that primitive custom was breaking down even in
countries far removed from contact with Christianity and Roman
civilisation. We cannot tell indeed how far the change was general,
since our knowledge is practically limited to the princely families.
It is by no means unlikely that the lower strata of society were more
conservative in many respects.
The principle which had now become dominant, at least in the higher
ranks, was that of personal allegiance. This principle was of course
by no means new. Even in Tacitus' works we hear of the _comites_ who
lived and fought in their lord's service and thought it a disgrace to
survive his death. In the Heroic Age however it is probable that among
the more northern peoples every man, except the king himself, had a
lord. In the Anglo-Saxon laws the lord shares with the kindred the
duty of protecting his men, and when one of them is slain he receives
a special payment (the _manbot_) when the wergeld was paid to the
relatives. Also, when any of his men die, at all events a man of the
higher classes, he is entitled to the heriot, i.e. the arms of the dead
man, which in theory at least the latter had originally received from
him[517].
But in the poems, as is natural, we hear most frequently of the knights
who formed the courts and retinues of kings and princes. As a summary
of the services rendered by such persons to their lord, Tacitus' brief
description (_Germ._ 13) still holds good: their presence gave him
dignity in time of peace and protection in war. They dwelt and served
him at his court and joined him in hunting and other amusements,
while he rewarded their services with gifts of treasure and arms. In
the descriptions of kings which we meet with in the poems there is
no characteristic--not even personal bravery--which receives more
commendation than that of generosity to their followers. In return
the knight was expected to give up to his lord whatever he gained by
his own exploits--just as Beowulf renders up to Hygelac and his queen
the valuable gifts which he had received from the king of the Danes.
As an instance of personal devotion in time of war we may cite the
surrender of Chonodomarius' retinue at the battle of Strassburg--an
incident to which we have already referred (p. 340). So also in the
various accounts of the fall of Hrólfr Kraki given by Scandinavian
authorities the king's knights are said to have perished to a man. The
same spirit survived in England in later times, as we see from the
story of Cynewulf's death, when in each of the two encounters only one
member of the defeated party was left alive. It was also thoroughly in
the spirit of the Heroic Age that Edwin's knight, Lilla, acted when he
threw himself between the king and the assassin and received a mortal
wound in so doing.
It was customary for the sons of noblemen to enter the king's service
at an early age. Beowulf went to Hrethel's court when he was only
seven years old; but this case may have been exceptional, as he was
the king's grandson. When they reached manhood[518] the king was
expected to provide them with estates or jurisdiction over land, which
would enable them to marry and support a household of their own. Thus
Beowulf, after proving his prowess at the Danish court, is presented
by Hygelac on his return with seven thousand hides--a considerable
province--together with a residence and a prince's authority. The
grant is accompanied by the gift of a sword, signifying that the bond
of personal allegiance was still preserved. Beowulf in turn presents
his young relative Wiglaf with the dwelling-place of their family and
the public rights appertaining thereto. The court minstrels Widsith
and Deor receive grants of land from their lords. In two of these
cases (those of Wiglaf and Widsith) we are told that the estate had
previously been in the possession of the recipient's father; and we may
probably assume that such cases were not uncommon. Yet it is plain that
such practices must very largely have destroyed the tribal custom of
succession--at least in the higher ranks of society.
Those who had received grants of land or jurisdiction did not
thereupon cease to attend the court. In the English courts of the
seventh century Bede distinguishes between the _comites_, who already
held office, and the _ministri_ or _milites_, who seem in general
to have been young knights without such official positions. The
Anglo-Saxon version of the Ecclesiastical History translates _comes_
by _gesið_ and _minister_ or _miles_ by _þegn_. In poetry both these
words are of frequent occurrence, though they appear to be used more or
less indiscriminately. It should be observed that the word _þegn_ means
properly no more than 'servant[519]' though (like _knight_ in later
times) it came to be specialised, while _gesið_ is almost an exact
equivalent of _comes_[520]. In Beowulf however we meet with the same
classes under the collective terms _geogoð_ and _duguð_, i.e. youths
and men of tried valour respectively. To the latter may be assigned
such persons as Aeschere, Hrothgar's "confidant and counsellor," who
had stood by his side on the battlefield; but the former class were
probably as a rule in the majority.
Another characteristic of these retinues, which deserves notice, is the
fact that they were not always composed of born subjects of the king.
Bede (_H. E._ III 14) says that Oswine, the popular king of Deira,
attracted young noblemen to his service from all sides; and in the
Heroic Age such cases appear to have been frequent. Perhaps the most
striking case in the poems is that of Weohstan, who took service under
the Swedish king Onela and consequently became involved in hostilities
against his own nation. It is probably due to the same custom that we
find so many Teutonic chieftains serving under the Romans during the
Heroic Age. Among them we may mention Arbogastes, Stilicho, Ricimer
and Odoacer. Most frequently perhaps the men who sought service abroad
were those who had either lost their lords or had had to leave their
homes through vendetta. Such cases occur frequently in the Anglo-Saxon
poems; we may refer especially to the Wanderer and the Husband's
Message. Further, it appears from the story of Waldhere and Hagena
that even hostages were expected to fight for the prince to whom they
had been given. In later times we may compare the case of the British
hostage who was wounded in the fight following Cynewulf's murder. But
there are a number of other stories which seem to indicate that it was
at one time a regular custom for young princes to set out from their
homes, on reaching manhood, and to seek the court of some foreign king
with a view to marrying his daughter and thereby acquiring a share in
the sovereignty. Such incidents are of the commonest occurrence in
folk-tales; and we find them also in works, such as Hervarar Saga and
Ynglinga Saga, which claim to be based on genuine tradition. It is in
this light too that all northern authorities represent the position of
Sigurðr at the home of Guðrún.
What has been said above applies primarily of course to the more
northern peoples. The Goths were early exposed to Christian and Roman
influence, and the same is true also of the Burgundians, especially
after their settlement in Gaul. The Franks were no doubt less affected
at first; but their customs seem from the beginning to have differed
a good deal from those which we have been considering. They too had
retinues of warriors (_antrustiones_ or _homines in truste regis_)
attached to the kings by personal service; but the prevalence of
lordship in the lower ranks of society is by no means so clear. The
possession of land also seems to have been governed at first by tribal
principles and later by that of succession in the male line--without
reference to the will of a superior. These differences are doubtless
connected with certain features which distinguished the social
organisation of the Franks from that of the other Teutonic peoples.
Every one of the early Teutonic nations possessed a more or less
elaborate social system, with various class gradations. These
gradations may be seen most clearly in the sums of money fixed for
wergelds, for the compensations fixed for various injuries and
insults and for fines; in some cases also they show themselves in the
relative value attached to oaths. Apart from slaves, who do not come
into consideration in these matters, the classes usually met with
are those of nobles, freemen and freedmen. Sometimes however a class
is subdivided; sometimes again one class is wanting altogether. Thus
in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, except Kent, there were two grades of
nobility, apparently landowning and landless, while freedmen did not
form a distinct class. Among the Franks on the other hand we find no
noble class. In general the freeman's wergeld is about double that of
the freedman, while that of the noble is twice or thrice as great as
the former; and the other payments usually follow more or less the same
proportion. The actual sums fixed in the various laws differ greatly in
each case, owing to the employment of different systems of currency.
But it may be regarded as extremely probable that the normal wergeld
of the freeman was originally a hundred head of cattle. Some nations,
further, had special wergelds for certain high officials. Among the
Franks persons _in truste regis_ had threefold wergelds, and the same
applied to the ordinary freeman when engaged in military service.
In England the existence of special official wergelds is uncertain,
at least before the great Danish invasion, though such persons were
entitled to higher compensations in other respects. But in this country
members of the royal families had wergelds six times as great as those
of the higher class of nobles.
All the above classes (excluding officials of course) seem to have
been as a rule hereditary. In some nations indeed the descendants
of freedmen did become freemen. But it is scarcely probable that
this class everywhere consisted only of manumitted slaves or their
offspring. Sometimes we find the terms _litus_, _latus_, _lazzus_
(_laet_ in the Kentish laws) in place of _libertus_; and there is good
reason for believing that this class was largely derived from subject
populations. Its numbers seem to have been very large. As to the
numbers of the nobility there was apparently great difference between
one nation and another. Among the Bavarians it consisted only of six
families, including that of the duke, whereas in England it appears to
have formed a considerable element in the population. The term applied
to it here was _gesiðcund_, i.e. of _gesið_ origin (cf. p. 350), which
indicates clearly a hereditary official or rather military class.
Indeed the evidence seems to show that the population consisted of
two clearly defined classes, which we may describe as military and
agricultural, and that all serious fighting was left to the former.
This is another feature in which Anglo-Saxon custom differed from
that of the Franks, whose armies in the sixth century appear to have
been of a more truly national or even tribal character. With regard
to the other nations we have less information; but it is probable
that the military organisation of the Danes and other Baltic peoples
approximated more nearly to the English type.
* * * * *
In Homeric society we find the same forces operative as in that of the
Teutonic Heroic Age. The duty of protecting or avenging one's relatives
is frequently mentioned. Thus in Od. XVI 97 f. the disguised Odysseus
says to Telemachos: "Hast thou fault to find with thy brethren, for
it is in them that a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel
takes place?" Telemachos replies (v. 115 ff.): "Nor have I fault to
find with my brethren, in whom a man trusts to do battle, even if a
great quarrel takes place. For our family has been reduced to one man
by the son of Cronos, as I will tell thee. Arceisios begat one only son
Laertes, and Odysseus again was the only son begotten by his father;
but Odysseus begat me only and left me in his palace without profit to
himself. Hence there are now innumerable enemies in our house."
The duty of vengeance is clearly recognised by Nestor in Od. III 196
ff.: "How good a thing it is for even a dead man's child to survive!
For he (Orestes) also took vengeance on his father's slayer, the crafty
Aigisthos, who killed his famous father." It was in order to escape
such a fate that Theoclymenos besought Telemachos to take him on his
ship (_ib._ XV 272 ff.): "I also have left my country, having killed
a man of my own tribe (or 'people'). And in Argos, the pastureland of
horses, he had many brethren and kinsmen who hold great authority among
the Achaeans. I have taken to flight and so evaded death and black fate
at their hands; for it is still my lot to wander among men. Now take
me on thy ship, since I have come to thee as a fugitive and suppliant,
lest they kill me outright; for I am sure they are in pursuit." We
are reminded here of the story of Ecgtheo, the father of Beowulf, who
fled for protection to the Danish king Hrothgar owing to a similar
cause (Beow. 459 ff.). Another case of such exile occurs in Il. XIII
695 ff. (XV 334 ff.): "He (Medon) dwelt in Phylace, away from his own
fatherland; for he had slain a man, the kinsman of his stepmother
Eriopis, whom Oileus had to wife." We may compare also Il. XV 430 ff.
where Hector slays "Lycophron, the son of Mastor, the Cytherian squire
of Aias, who dwelt with him; for he had slain a man in divine Cythera."
Among the Homeric Greeks, as in northern Europe, compensation for
manslaughter could be made to the dead man's relatives. Thus in Il. IX
632 ff. Aias says to Achilles: "And yet one accepts compensation from
a man who has slain one's brother or for the death of a son. Hence it
comes to pass that the one, when he has paid a large compensation,
remains in his own land, while the other, after he has accepted the
compensation, restrains his feelings and his proud spirit." Again, in
the description of Achilles' shield we find a scene (_ib._ XVIII 497
ff.) representing a dispute over the payment of a wergeld. "The folk
were gathered in the assembly place; for there a strife was arisen,
two men striving about the blood-price of a man slain; the one claimed
to pay full atonement, expounding to the people, but the other denied
him and would take naught; and both were fain to receive arbitrament
at the hand of a daysman[521]." In this case the transaction takes
place before certain elders, one of whom is to receive a payment of two
talents, apparently as a reward for bringing about an agreement. There
is no mention of any payment to the king[522].
From the passage relating to Theoclymenos quoted above (v. 273: πολλοὶ
κασίγνητοί τε ἔται τε) we may probably infer that the duty of vengeance
extended beyond the brothers of the slain man; and evidence to the same
effect is given by the story of Tlepolemos (Il. II 661 ff.). But it is
not at all clear how many degrees of relationship were either involved
in this duty or entitled to compensation. Indeed the poems give us very
little information regarding the character of the kindred. Patronymic
forms such as Ἀτρείδης[523] are very common and correspond in use
to Anglo-Saxon forms such as _Hreðling_, _Wonreding_. But they are
almost always used of individuals or of a pair of brothers (Ἀτρείδα,
δοιοὶ Ἱππασίδαι). Collective names for families, such as Ἡρακλείδαι,
Πελοπίδαι, seem not to occur in the Homeric poems[524]. Indeed the
patronymic is nearly always derived from the name of the father. Cases
where they are taken from the grandfather's name, e.g. Αἰακίδης for
Achilles, appear to be quite exceptional. This is a feature in which
Homeric usage differs not only from Teutonic but also, still more,
from that of later times in Greece, where we frequently find families
or kindreds bearing patronymic names derived from a remote ancestor.
As examples we may mention the Aigeidai at Sparta and the Philaidai at
Athens.
But the difference between Homeric and later usage in this respect does
not seem to be one of nomenclature only. At Athens we find later an
elaborate system of 'tribes' (φυλαί), phratries or 'clans' (φράτραι)
and 'kindreds' (γένη), of which the last at all events were supposed
to rest on a basis of blood-relationship, involving common religious
rites. Divisions of a more or less similar type seem to have existed in
the other Greek states. In the Homeric poems however we find extremely
little evidence for anything of this kind. The clearest case is in Il.
II 362 f., where Nestor instructs Agamemnon as follows: "Divide thy men
according to tribes and clans, Agamemnon, that clan may render succour
to clan and tribe to tribe[525]." In the battle scenes we hear little
of any such organisation, though this may be due to the fact that
attention is entirely concentrated upon the leaders. But it is worth
noting that the word φρήτρη occurs only in this passage[526]. Again,
φυλή does not occur at all, except possibly in the form καταφυλαδόν
(Il. II 668), while φῦλον is a word of very vague significance, ranging
from φῦλα ἀνθρώπων etc. to the φῦλον Ἀρκεισίου, i.e. the descendants of
a man whose son is still alive[527]. The same is true also of γένος.
Lastly, there is no evidence for any religious rites peculiar to
certain families or clans.
It would be rash of course to conclude from this that the clan and
family system of later times was unknown in the age of the poems; for
in itself it bears every mark of antiquity. But there must be some
reason for the neglect with which it is treated in the poems. If we
examine individual cases we find that scarcely any heroes claim an
ancestry of more than three generations. The Achaean families with the
longest history are those of Agamemnon and Odysseus; but, if we are
to believe post-Homeric tradition, the former changed its territories
after the time of Pelops.
This brings us to the question of succession. In Ithaca the throne
seems to pass in the regular paternal line; and, though there is really
no king after the retirement of Laertes, it is generally expected that
the young Telemachos will eventually take his place (Od. I 386 f., II
14). Similarly Nestor has succeeded his father Neleus, while Idomeneus
apparently occupies the throne formerly held by his father's father,
Minos. On the other hand, according to the story told by Glaucos (Il.
VI 192 f.), Bellerophon, a stranger, received half the kingly rights in
Lycia with the hand of the king's daughter. Moreover all post-Homeric
authorities agree that Menelaos received the throne of Sparta by
marriage, from his father-in-law Tyndareos. Similar stories are told
of Tydeus, Telamon, Peleus, Teucros and many others[528]. It is to
be observed that, though these stories do not occur in the Iliad and
Odyssey, they do not conflict with any evidence to be found there. Many
of them can be traced back to the seventh century, indeed probably to
the eighth.
If we are to trust post-Homeric authorities it would seem that the
wife remained in her parents' home quite as often as she went to that
of her husband. This state of things however points to the prevalence
of a cognatic organisation of society. In the case of Bellerophon
indeed there can scarcely be any doubt; for the Lycians reckoned
descent through the mother down to the time of Herodotus. The historian
himself (I 173) remarks on the custom as strange and without parallel
elsewhere--from which we may probably infer that it had disappeared
altogether from Greece before his time. Yet in one Greek community we
have evidence almost as explicit. According to Polybius, XII 5, the
Epizephyrian Locrians stated that with them all ancestral honours were
derived from women and not from men, and that even then (i.e. in the
second century) their nobility traced their descent from certain women
of 'the hundred families' who had taken part in the foundation of the
colony. 'The hundred families' were those which before this time had
been selected by the Locrians (i.e. the Hypocnemidian Locrians) as the
families from which they were to choose the virgins who were to be sent
to Ilion. This story seems to imply that cognatic organisation survived
in Locris down to the beginning of the seventh century[529]. In other
states[530], so far as I am aware, we find only traces of the former
existence of such an institution. Some of these however suggest that
the change may not have been of any very great antiquity[531].
The Homeric poems themselves contain some further evidence, which
points in the same direction. We may note that a number of heroes are
said to be sons of gods. But it can hardly be without significance that
the Lycian prince Sarpedon (daughter's son of Bellerophon) is the only
son of Zeus, who belongs to the story of the Trojan war, whereas in the
earlier generations examples are comparatively common. In post-Homeric
genealogies the succession of son to father seems to become less
frequent the farther one goes back.
In regard to marriage customs the poems show a remarkable absence of
uniformity. The story of Bellerophon is by no means the only case
in which the wife remains at home, even if we leave out of account
such marriages as those of Menelaos and Tydeus, upon which the poems
themselves are silent. Alcinoos proposes a union of this kind to
Odysseus (Od. VII 311 ff.)[532], and the wife of Iphidamas the son of
Antenor appears to remain with her father (Il. XI 225 f.). On the whole
however the other type seems to be decidedly more common. Then we have
to take into account the use of the word ἔεδνα. It is commonly held
that this originally denoted the 'bride-price' paid by the bridegroom
to the relatives of the bride; and there is no doubt that the word
is so used in several passages. In others however it may at least
equally well denote presents made to the bride herself; occasionally
indeed it appears to mean presents (i.e. a dowry) given by the bride's
parents. By far the most prominent case of course is that of Penelope;
and here the question is complicated apparently by a doubt as to the
proper person entitled to bestow the bride--who is presumed to be a
widow. Sometimes the decision seems to rest with her son, Telemachos,
sometimes with her father--never with Laertes; but in the end she takes
the matter into her own hands, after exacting presents for herself from
all the suitors. It has been well suggested[533] that the ambiguity in
the situation is due to a real change of custom. But I am by no means
convinced that the ancient custom, now being superseded, was one of
real purchase. It is made fairly clear (Od. I 396 ff., XV 518 ff., XXII
49 ff., etc.) that at least some of the suitors have ulterior objects
in view. That the throne should be conveyed through Penelope seems to
us no doubt illogical; for Odysseus himself had not acquired it by his
marriage. But, if we are right in believing that the type of marriage
represented in the story of Bellerophon is earlier than the other, the
situation depicted in the Odyssey is one for which ancient custom could
not have made provision; indeed in such a situation traditional feeling
might very well incline towards regarding the queen, even though a
stranger, as the proper channel for conveying the succession. Add to
this the practical consideration that Penelope is apparently the person
actually in command of the treasury; and we have no reason, so far as I
am aware, for doubting that treasury and kingdom were as closely bound
up together in Heroic Greece as they were in the Heroic Age of the
northern peoples[534]. It has often been remarked that the position of
women in the Homeric poems appears to be one of greater influence and
responsibility than anything we find in later times. But nowhere is
this responsibility made so clear as in the absence of all evidence for
the constitution of a regency when the king is away from home.
If the view put forward above is correct we must conclude that a change
had been taking place in the organisation of society, and indeed
that it was as yet by no means complete[535]. We have noticed that
the conditions seem to have been somewhat similar in the Heroic Age
of the Teutonic peoples. But we saw also that there the change was
apparently accompanied by a relaxation in the bonds of kinship, which
shows itself especially in fatal strife between relatives. The same
phenomenon appears in the Homeric poems. Thus according to Il. II 662
f. Tlepolemos slew his father's mother's brother, Licymnios, and had
to leave his country in consequence. Among Achilles' followers (_ib._
XVI 570 ff.) was a certain Epeigeus who had taken refuge with Peleus
because he had killed a cousin or kinsman (ἀνεψιός) in his own city.
Again in Il. IX 566 f. it is at least implied that Meleagros slew his
mother's brothers (in accordance with the story found later). In the
same speech (V 458 ff.) Phoinix confesses that he had been on the point
of killing his own father. Then there is the tragic history of the
house of Pelops. The facts stated in the Odyssey are that Aigisthos
slew Agamemnon, his father's brother's son, and that Orestes, the son
of Agamemnon, eventually slew Aigisthos. The most important feature in
this story is that here we have not only homicide but also vengeance
within the kindred. It is not actually stated that Orestes slew his
mother; but from Od. III 310 we may infer at least that she perished at
the same time as Aigisthos. This is one of the cases in which I suspect
that disagreeable incidents connected with royal families have been
suppressed (cf. p. 238). Later authorities add many more instances of
homicide within the kindred. Some of these, such as the 'banquet of
Thyestes,' bear a close resemblance to Teutonic stories which we know
to be unhistorical. Others again may have been invented to account
for the presence of heroes in districts far from their native place.
Yet from the fact that this motive is so frequently employed we may
conclude that the murder of relatives was nothing very rare.
In this respect then the Greek evidence agrees entirely with the
Teutonic. In both cases alike the bonds of kinship seem to have lost
their force to a great extent[536]. But it is to be remembered that
among the Teutonic peoples we have in general no evidence except for
the families of kings and royal officials; in other ranks of society
the kindred may have retained much more vitality--as indeed the
laws seem to imply. Such may also have been the case in Greece; for
the Homeric poems are concerned almost exclusively with persons of
princely rank. Certainly the strength and sanctity possessed by the
kindred in early historical times is most easily to be explained on the
supposition that the tendency which we have been discussing affected
only a limited element in society[537].
The second of the two principles which we find dominant in early
Teutonic society, namely that of personal allegiance, seems at first
sight to play by no means so important a part in the life of heroic
Greece. But for the lack of prominence assigned to it there are special
reasons--a different reason in the case of each poem. In the Iliad,
which deals with campaign life, the stage is so crowded with kings that
there is little room left for persons of humbler station. The only
force indeed of which we have any account at all is that of Achilles.
This was divided into five troops, each under a leader of its own, in
addition to Patroclos and Automedon. We saw in the last chapter that
the speech in which Patroclos exhorts his men to battle is entirely in
the spirit of the Teutonic _comitatus_. The appeal which he makes to
them is not to any feeling of patriotism, but entirely to the effect
that they should show their devotion to their own lord. We may note
that several of the chief men, at all events Patroclos, Automedon and
Phoinix, seem to share Achilles' hut. The passionate friendship of
Achilles and Patroclos appears to be a stronger bond than any other
relationship that we meet with in the Homeric poems. But even if we
set this on one side as something exceptional, the devotion shown to
Achilles by Phoinix is quite in accordance with the best traditions of
Teutonic thegnship.
The Odyssey presents us with the picture of a king's house in time of
peace. But, though Penelope has not less than fifty women in the house,
the only men apparently, besides the suitors and their followers, are
Telemachos himself, the herald Medon and the minstrel Phemios, together
with the swineherd, neatherd and goatherd who come with provisions
each day from a distance. But the conditions here are abnormal; the
king himself has been away from home for many years, and his son is
only just reaching manhood. It is scarcely credible that a Teutonic
_comitatus_ could have existed under such conditions. Menelaos appears
to have something of a retinue at his court. In IV 22 f. we hear of a
θεράπων named Eteoneus, who seems to be a person of some rank, as he is
called κρείων. In v. 216 f. another θεράπων, Asphalion, is mentioned,
while v. 37 f. speak of several of such persons, though their number
is not stated. All that is said of them seems to indicate that their
position was much the same as that of the thegns in early Teutonic
courts. The picture of the Phaeacian court also bears a general
resemblance to that of the Danish court as described in Beowulf.
The use of the word θεράπων appears to correspond almost exactly to
that of _þegn_[538]. In both cases the general meaning is 'servant';
but, just as we find Beowulf described as _Hygelaces þegn_, so in the
Iliad the term θεράπων is applied to such distinguished persons as
Meriones and Patroclos. The converse term ἄναξ also seems to correspond
almost as closely to the English _dryhten_. Like the latter it is used
for the master of a slave (e.g. Od. XV 557), while on the other hand
it is applied, again like _dryhten_, to the most important kings--and
even deities--in relation to all who recognise their authority. We
have already noticed (p. 329) that the phrase ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν seems to
correspond very closely to the English phrase _eorla dryhten_.
There is little or no evidence to show whether it was customary for the
sons of leading men to be brought up at the king's court. Patroclos was
declared to be the θεράπων of Achilles at an early age (Il. XXIII 89
f.); but the circumstances were exceptional. Certainly the θεράποντες
often came from beyond the king's dominions. Thus Patroclos had come
from Opus (_ib._ XXIII 85 ff.) and Lycophron, Aias' squire, from
Cythera (_ib._ XV 430 f.). It is true that both these persons had had
to leave their homes owing to homicides which they had committed; and
no doubt many such cases were due to circumstances which rendered a
change of abode advisable. Thus Phoinix had sought the protection of
Peleus owing to a deadly quarrel with his father. Yet apart from such
emergencies the protection and friendship of a wealthy and powerful
king probably offered considerable attractions. We may refer to a
somewhat remarkable passage in the Odyssey (IV 174 ff.), where Menelaos
says that it had been his wish to bring Odysseus to his own country,
with his son and his followers and possessions, adding that in order to
make a home for him he would have ejected the inhabitants from one of
the neighbouring cities which were under his lordship.
Menelaos' intention seems to have been to put Odysseus in the position
of a dependent prince. We have seen that Teutonic kings were in the
habit of rewarding their knights with grants of jurisdiction; and the
same appears to have been the case with the kings of Homeric times.
Thus in Il. IX 483 f. Phoinix says that Peleus had made him rich and
granted him many followers, and that he had made his dwelling in a
frontier district as lord over the Dolopes. This passage seems to
furnish almost an exact parallel to the treatment of Beowulf by Hygelac
(cf. p. 349). A similar case perhaps was that of Medon, the son of
Oileus, who according to Il. II 727 commanded the forces from Methone
and the adjacent districts, in the absence of Philoctetes, and who,
like Phoinix, was a fugitive from his native land (cf. XIII 695 ff.).
Here too we may mention the case of Phyleus, who had left his own
country and gone to Dulichion owing to a quarrel with his father (_ib._
II 629), and whose son Meges commanded the forces from that island.
In many such cases of course there may have been a marriage with a
princess of the native royal family; but it is hardly necessary to
assume that this was universal. In the case of Phoinix indeed such an
assumption is improbable.
There seems to be no actual record of a Homeric hero who left his
home except under stress of circumstances; and hence, after making
all deductions, we are bound, I think, to conclude that the system
of the _comitatus_ was not so highly developed as in the north of
Europe. This is in full conformity with the fact that kingly families
were apparently much more numerous. Among the suitors of Penelope
twelve princes belong to Ithaca alone, an island of no great size and
probably never thickly populated[539].
For a class of nobility distinct from the princely families we have no
clear evidence[540]. Persons like Eteoneus, the squire of Menelaos, may
belong to such a class; but it is quite possible that they are princes.
We may refer also to the false story told by Odysseus in Od. XIII 256
ff., from which it appears that chiefs with small followings might be
expected to place themselves in the position of θεράποντες to more
powerful chiefs. But Odysseus does not here make clear what rank he
claims to have possessed in Crete. Quite possibly the practice referred
to might be somewhat analogous to what we find in the Saga of Harold
the Fair-haired, where a number of petty kings submit to Harold and
take the rank of earls.
The same want of definiteness occurs in regard to the humbler ranks of
society. Even the slave's status is not made particularly clear, while
there is no reference to the existence of freedmen or to the practice
of manumission[541]. Slaves are apparently able to buy other slaves
on their own account (cf. Od. XIV 449 ff.). In other respects however
their position seems to be very similar to that of slaves in early
Teutonic society[542]. Still less do we hear of differences of rank
or status within the free population[543]. But it should be observed
that the Anglo-Saxon poems give us no more information on such matters.
Were it not for the early laws and foreign authorities we should know
nothing of the distinction between land-holding and landless peasants,
nor even of the great classes of noble, freeman, slave, etc. The true
explanation seems to be that both sets of poems alike are interested
only in persons of royal rank.
No light is thrown on the social system by the passages which mention
the payment of wergelds; for we are not informed whether these were
fixed by custom or whether they formed the subject of bargaining in
each individual case. In Il. XXI 79 f. Lycaon says that Achilles had
sold him into Lemnos for a hundred oxen and that he had been ransomed
from thence for three hundred. Even the smaller of these sums is of
course much too great for an ordinary slave's price. In the light of
Teutonic custom it is possible that both represent standard wergelds,
regarded as man-values in general; but one can hardly say that it is
more than a possibility. The silence of the poems upon this subject is
nothing surprising, for the Teutonic poems yield us no more information.
* * * * *
We may now briefly summarise the results of this discussion. The
salient characteristic of the Heroic Age, both in Greece and in
northern Europe, appears to be the disintegration of the bonds of
kinship, a process which shows itself chiefly in the prevalence of
strife between relatives, and which in both cases is probably connected
with a change in the organisation of the kindred--agnatic relationship
having come gradually to take the place of cognatic. How far this
process affected society as a whole we cannot tell, since our evidence
is generally limited to the royal families. The binding force formerly
possessed by kinship was now largely transferred to the relationship
between 'lord' and 'man' (_dryhten_--_þegn_, ἄναξ--θεράπων), between
whom no bond of blood-relationship was necessary. The _comitatus_
was probably not developed in Greece to the same extent as it was in
northern Europe; indeed in regard to social development generally
the conditions in Greece seem to have been more primitive. Yet in
individual cases the bond between lord and man was apparently the
strongest force of which we know.
FOOTNOTES:
[513] Cf. _The Origin of the English Nation_, p. 327 ff.
[514] ξυγγενῆ γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸν φονέα εἶναι οὐ θέμις. Cf. Greg. Tur., II
40, where Clovis says: _nec enim possum sanguinem parentum meorum
effundere, quod fieri nefas est_. But this is represented as mere
hypocrisy; cf. II 41, _ad fin._
[515] In some cases the deed was certainly done by the relative's own
hand. Such was the case with Lothair and the sons of Chlodomer (Greg.
Tur., III 18).
[516] Beow. 2618 f.:
_no ymb ða faehðe spraec,
þeah ðe he his broðor bearn abredwade._
Many scholars here understand _ða faehðe_ to mean not the encounter
between Eanmund and Weohstan, but the hostility (vendetta) which
devolved upon Onela as Eanmund's kinsman; but I think the idea is
rather that of 'bloodguiltiness' (towards Onela) incurred by Weohstan.
Eanmund was the son of Ohthere, Onela's brother.
[517] It may be observed that in Beow. 452 ff. the hero requests the
Danish king to send his mail-coat to Hygelac, if he should be killed
by Grendel. This mail-coat (described as Weland's handiwork) is said
to have belonged formerly to Hrethel, Hygelac's father (Beowulf's
grandfather).
[518] In the seventh century it appears to have been customary to make
these grants when the recipient was about twenty-four or twenty-five
years old; cf. Bede, _Hist. Abb._, §§ 1, 8; _Ep. ad Ecgb._, § 11.
[519] We may compare the use of the word _sluga_ in Servian heroic
poetry (cf. p. 316); its ordinary meaning is 'servant.'
[520] The same word is used in a similar sense in the Langobardic laws;
_gasindus_ (or _gasindius_), 'Gefolgsmann,' and so also _gasindium_,
'Gefolgschaft'; cf. Brückner, _Quellen und Forschungen_, LXXV p. 205.
[521] Quoted from the translation by Lang, Leaf and Myers.
[522] The interpretation of Hesiod, _W. and D._ 38 f., need not be
discussed here.
[523] The other types (e.g. Πηλείων, Τελαμώνιος) are less frequent.
[524] Καδμεῖοι, Καδμείωνες are at best very dubious examples, for
Cadmos is probably to be regarded as an eponymous national hero, like
Dardanos.
[525]
κρῖν' ἄνδρας κατὰ φῦλα, κατὰ φρήτρας, Ἀγάμεμνον,
ὡς φρήτρη φρήτρηφιν ἀρήγῃ, φῦλα δὲ φύλοις.
Cf. Tacitus, _Germ._ 7: _quodque praecipuum fortitudinis incitamentum
est, non casus nec fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum facit sed
familiae et propinquitates_. But the context shows that the conditions
here are of a totally different character from those in the Iliad.
[526] But cf. Il. IX 63, where the word ἀφρήτωρ occurs, apparently with
reference to the same institution.
[527] The meaning of the word ἔμφυλον in Od. XV 273 seems to be quite
ambiguous.
[528] Cf. Frazer, _Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_,
p. 238 ff. The story of Peleus and Eurytion bears rather a close
resemblance to that of Bellerophon.
[529] It is to be borne in mind that the Epizephyrian Locrians were one
of the first, if not the very first, of all Greek communities to obtain
a codification of their laws--probably indeed within half a century of
the establishment of the colony. This fact may perhaps account for the
survival of primitive institutions among them.
[530] Except perhaps in Cos; but the evidence here is ambiguous.
[531] Cf. Ridgeway, _The Origin of Tragedy_, p. 190 ff.
[532] The nature of Agamemnon's proposal to Achilles in Il. IX 144 ff.
(286 ff.) is not quite clear. Achilles is to choose one of Agamemnon's
daughters and take her to Peleus' home. But with her Agamemnon is to
give seven cities, situated apparently in Messenia, which in future
are to be subject to Achilles. Possibly v. 149 is to be understood as
introducing a new (alternative) proposal.
[533] Cf. Cauer, _Grundfragen d. Homerkritik_², p. 292 ff.
[534] We may compare Beow. 2369 ff., where--in a situation somewhat
analogous to that of the Odyssey--Hygelac's widowed queen offers both
treasury and kingdom to the chief surviving prince, distrusting the
ability of her young son to hold his own.
[535] That the type of organisation which prevailed during the growth
of Homeric poetry was agnatic may be inferred from the regular use of
the word πάτρη and the (probably older) expression πατρὶς γαῖα, which
perhaps originally denoted 'land of one's father' (the _faeder eðel_
of Widsith, v. 96). But according to Plato (_Republic_, 575 D) the
Cretans used μητρίς for πατρίς. Evidence for the prevalence of cognatic
organisation in early times is furnished by certain words denoting
relationship, especially ἀδελφός (originally 'uterine brother'), and a
relic of the feeling that this form of relationship was closer seems to
be preserved in Il. XXI 95. We may also take into account the formation
of patronymics in -ιδᾱ, which appear to be extended from the feminine
suffix -ιδ- by another suffix (-ᾱ-) also properly feminine. In the
north-western dialects these names were declined as feminines (e.g. N.
sg. Εχσοιδα, G. sg. Προκλειδας). One can hardly help suspecting that
these names belonged originally to genealogies of the Lycian type.
[536] It is possibly due to the same cause that we meet with some
curious marriages. Thus Alcinoos is married to his brother's daughter,
and Iphidamas to his mother's sister. The former case offends against
the principle of agnatic organisation, the latter against the cognatic.
Some other heroes (e.g. Diomedes) seem to be in somewhat similar
positions.
[537] The Locrian case quoted above (p. 357) suggests that the kindreds
may, sometimes at least, have been organised on a cognatic basis.
[538] There is a certain amount of parallelism also between ἑταῖρος and
_gesið_ (cf. p. 350). But the former has scarcely the same technical
significance as the latter.
[539] Assuming the Homeric Ithaca to be identical with the Ithaca of
later times. If 'Same' is the later Ithaca, the number of suitors
furnished by this island is twenty-four.
[540] Cf. Fanta, _Der Staat in der Ilias und Odyssee_, p. 26 f., where
a distinction is drawn between higher and lower nobility--the βασιλῆες
being only a portion of the ἀριστῆες; but the evidence seems to me
inconclusive.
[541] Yet the promise made by Odysseus to the herdsmen in Od. XXI 213
ff. may perhaps be analogous to the change of status involved when a
Teutonic slave was made a freedman.
[542] In both cases the household slaves seem to have been almost
entirely women, who were occupied for the most part in grinding corn.
[543] From Od. IV 644 and VI 489 f. it seems probable on the whole
that there existed a class of landless freemen corresponding to the
Ang.-Sax. _geburas_. But no information apparently is given with regard
to the κλῆρος--whether it corresponded at all to the hide of the
_gafolgelda_ (roughly comparable with the Athenian ζευγίτης) or whether
it represented normally a much larger estate.